House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Kit Malthouse)
My Department continues to work with the Office for Students to ensure that universities support students in hardship by drawing on the £261 million student premium.
Cat Smith
I have been hearing from students from the University of Lancaster and the University of Cumbria, and I share the concerns of the organisation MillionPlus, whose report “Learning with the lights off” highlights the difficulties that around 300,000 students are facing. Has the Secretary of State seen the report, and will he meet me and representatives of MillionPlus to discuss how the report’s recommendations on bringing immediate grant support to students could be implemented by his Government?
Kit Malthouse
I am afraid that I have not yet seen the report, but I will ask my team to dig it out and give it a look over. If the hon. Lady has specific issues that she wants to raise, I will be more than happy to meet her. Alongside the significant funding that we are putting into the student premium to deal with hardship in the student body, many students who are not living in halls of residence or other tied accommodation will benefit from the wider cost of living package that the Government have put together.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
They will no doubt be relieved on the grounds of the rate of interest they are required to pay on their student loans, won’t they?
Kit Malthouse
I know that the rate of interest on student loans is a matter of great interest to my right hon. Friend and his constituents. The switch from maintenance grants to loans that are effectively contingent upon income has been a success, in that we have seen during this period a significant increase in the likelihood of 18-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds going into higher education, but of course we constantly keep these things under review.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I have been speaking to a lot of students in recent weeks and they are obviously anxious about the cost of living. While student maintenance loans have increased by just 2.3% on average, inflation has rocketed to more than 10%, accommodation costs are up 5%, food costs are up 14.5% and transport costs are up by 10.6%, hitting commuter students particularly hard. The result is that students are facing an average funding gap of £439 per month and dropping out, while the Government are facing a credibility gap in this sector. Can the Secretary of State tell us what students are supposed to do?
Kit Malthouse
As I outlined previously, £261 million is available in this academic year to support disadvantaged students who need additional help. We have been working closely with the Office for Students to make sure that universities support those who are in hardship. It is worth pointing out that students will also benefit from reductions to their energy costs if they are buying from a domestic supplier, through the energy cost support package that we are putting in place. We have, as the hon. Gentleman said, continued to increase support for living costs over the last few years. He will know, however, that we keep these things under review constantly and an announcement on the uplift for this year will be forthcoming shortly.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Jonathan Gullis)
As someone who was a teacher for nearly nine years in disadvantaged areas in London and Birmingham, may I say that teaching is one of the most rewarding jobs you can have? In 2020-21 there was an increase of more than 4,400 full-time teachers in state-funded schools in England. This has resulted in the largest qualified teacher stock since the school workforce census began in 2011. We know that there is more to be done in some areas, which is why early career maths, physics, chemistry and computing teachers working in eligible schools with disadvantaged pupil cohorts can now claim our tax-free levelling up premium.
Mrs Murray
One of the key disadvantages we have in Cornwall is the relatively high cost of housing. Cornwall is beautiful and people want to live there, but what more can the Department do to encourage teachers to come to Cornwall and not to other places with cheaper housing?
Jonathan Gullis
My hon. Friend will understand only too well, as a former resident of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, that, like Cornwall, it too is a place of outstanding beauty. This Government are committed to ensuring that affordable housing is delivered, and since 2010 more than 9,000 homes have been delivered in Cornwall. In August 2021 we announced £1 billion of funding from our affordable homes programme, which will be used to deliver more than 17,000 affordable homes across the south-west. I am pleased to say that Cornwall is also an education investment area and has 26 schools that are eligible for the levelling up premium, including Liskeard School and Community College in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and specialist teachers in certain subjects in those schools can claim up to £3,000 tax free annually. Finally, in March 2022—
Mr Speaker
Order. It is not a full lesson we are putting out, just a good answer.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Disadvantage knows no boundaries and, likewise, we have huge challenges in our schools in Hackney. The Government promised that the starting salary for teachers would be £30,000. How close are the Government to reaching that manifesto commitment?
Jonathan Gullis
I am delighted to tell the hon. Lady that, at the next independent pay review, I have asked for this Government’s manifesto commitment to a £30,000 a year starting salary to be honoured for 2023-24.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)
We are reforming technical education to ensure that all post-16 students have access to technical options that support progression and meet employers’ needs. We have introduced T-levels, a new high-quality programme designed with employers that will give learners the knowledge and experience needed for skilled employment and further study, including higher education or higher apprenticeships. We are also reviewing existing qualifications that sit alongside A-levels and T-levels to ensure they are high quality and lead to good outcomes for students.
Jack Brereton
We have some fantastic creative and manufacturing industries in Stoke-on-Trent, but many of these industries say to me that they often struggle to fill certain vacancies. Will my hon. Friend look at what more we can do to help to incentivise vocational skills to get our economy growing?
Andrea Jenkyns
I know this is of great importance to my hon. Friend. Many different sectors face skills needs and challenges, which is why we are investing in skills through T-levels, apprenticeships, skills boot camps and free courses for jobs, giving people of all ages the opportunity to obtain the skills that industries like and that support economic growth.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
There is potentially a huge number of good green jobs for young people to go into, such as retrofitting homes, installing heat pumps and restoring wetlands, but many young people do not know these jobs exist, let alone the pathways to get into them. What are the Government doing to open their eyes to these opportunities?
Andrea Jenkyns
I thank the hon. Lady for her important question. I am proud of the Government’s record of investing in green jobs through T-levels, apprenticeships, higher technical qualifications and boot camps. Never before have there been so many opportunities to engage with green industries. We are also working closely with these industries to make sure they are at the heart of what we do.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The most popular high-quality vocational qualifications currently offered at level 3 are BTECs. Last week, the Education Committee heard evidence about the 6,500 level 3 students and 7,500 level 2 students whose results were delayed this year. The right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) rightly criticised the failure to reveal the number of students affected at the time and all the uncertainty that caused. When did the Minister first know how many students had not received their results? Why did she not insist that the number be made public?
Andrea Jenkyns
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a strong proponent of BTECs, having been a BTEC girl myself. The Department informed us, and we acted on that straightaway. I will have to get back to him with the exact date. Looking at the whole landscape, I assure him that it has been simplified and that, most importantly, these courses lead to good outcomes for students, ensuring they have a bright future.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Kit Malthouse)
We are focused on raising educational standards for all pupils, irrespective of their ethnicity.
Ms Abbott
The Government will be aware that, although many ethnic minority groups have narrowed the gap with white pupils, and in some cases overtaken them, some groups continue to underachieve, particularly black Caribbean boys. At a time when there are so many skills shortages, what is the Secretary of State doing to ensure all our pupils achieve their potential?
Kit Malthouse
I am pleased to say that the right hon. Lady is right and a number of minority groups now outperform the average, not least the largest group of the black community, those who would identify themselves as black African, who outperform the average in a number of ways. She is right, however, that there is underperformance by a number of black Caribbean pupils, mainly boys, and I certainly undertake to her to try to investigate why. However, I am sure she would agree that although external factors such as disadvantage can influence educational outcomes, the standard of the school and of the teaching that those pupils receive can often overcome many of those barriers. If she has not already done so, I urge her to visit the Michaela Community School in Wembley, which I visited two weeks ago and which is seeing extraordinary results from a very mixed and diverse community, in a very challenged part of London.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
One key reason for underachievement—of all pupils, including pupils from different ethnic minorities—is the absence of children from school. At the start of term this September, there was just 93.5% attendance in all schools, which means that children lost up to an estimated 17.6 million hours of learning. At the start of school term, we would expect to see higher rates of attendance, of about 98%. I know that the Department has appointed 13 attendance advisers, but we have 1.7 million absent children and 100,000-plus so-called “ghost children”. What is my right hon. Friend doing to get those children back into school, so that the 1.7 million persistently absent children are safely returned to the classroom?
Kit Malthouse
The Chairman of the Select Committee is absolutely right to push hard on this issue because it is vital to the future of not only those children, but their families. He is right that following the pandemic we have seen a reduction in attendance. One silver lining coming out of the pandemic was the fact that we now have real-time attendance data for a majority of schools—we are working to complete that for all—which allows us to focus in our efforts on driving attendance in those schools. Given my previous job at the Home Office, I am particularly keen that police, schools and local education authorities should work closely together to make sure that those children who are not at school and are not findable at home are found somewhere out in the community and brought back.
Mr Speaker
You are meant to work through the Chair, Secretary of State. If you could do so, it would be very helpful, because at least then I could hear you as well.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)
In September 2022, the Secretary of State for Education held introductory meetings with his counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That produced wide-ranging discussions, including on cost of living issues. Education is devolved, so additional support in this regard would be the responsibility of the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Deidre Brock
The Government’s lead adviser on food issues, Henry Dimbleby, has condemned the Minister’s response to the national food strategy, warning that it could mean more children go hungry. Just yesterday, the headteacher of a multi-academy trust reported that children are breaking down and crying because of hunger. In Scotland, all children in primary 1 to 5 receive free school meals and from 14 November all eligible children up to the age of 16 will be receiving the Scottish child payment of £25 per week. As this cost of living crisis deepens, when will this Government match the actions of the Scottish Government to support children in most need?
Andrea Jenkyns
We have provided £1.9 million of funding in free school meals and more than £2 billion in pupil premium. We are there to support disadvantaged students, which is why we are reforming education to give them a good start in life. Perhaps the hon. Lady and her counterparts in the devolved nations could learn from what we are doing here in England.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
But of course £1.9 million is not even going to touch the scale of the problem that we have here. Recent research from PwC found that for every pound invested in free school meals there was a return of £1.71 in savings to the state. Given that many families have moved beyond “just about managing” into “just about surviving”, when will this Government match the Scottish Government’s commitment to universal free school meals for primary children and the transformational Scottish child payment?
Andrea Jenkyns
As the former Education Secretary rightly says, it was our idea.
Let us look at the funding that we are giving Scotland. The devolved Administrations are well funded to deliver their devolved responsibilities. They have had block grant funding of an average of £41 billion a year. The Government have also extended free school meals to more children than any other Government over the past half a century. We remain committed to supporting the most disadvantaged children.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
The Minister for Schools and Childhood (Kelly Tolhurst)
The Government remain committed to improving uptake of Ebacc subjects, specifically languages. Building on our modern foreign language pedagogy pilot, we will establish a national network of language hubs from autumn 2023. We are also expanding the successful Mandarin excellence programme, as well as exploring an Arabic language programme.
Mr Walker
The Ebacc pioneered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) has been highly successful in driving uptake of mathematics, sciences and humanities, but there is much further to go in reaching our targets in modern foreign languages. What progress have Ministers made on the development of an Arabic language programme for schools and on ensuring that more pupils have the chance to study world languages?
Kelly Tolhurst
My hon. Friend raises an important question about the availability of more world languages, which are important for our young people because the United Kingdom operates in a global market. I can confirm that we are exploring an Arabic language programme, which will aim to build on the existing infrastructure of Arabic teaching. Our language hubs programme will also increase support for home, heritage and community languages.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Jonathan Gullis)
The Department is committed to attracting and retaining the highly skilled teachers we need by investing £181 million in this year’s recruitment cycle, including training bursaries and scholarships worth up to £29,000. We are also delivering 500,000 training opportunities, reforming teacher training and delivering on this Government’s manifesto commitment of £30,000-a-year starting salaries.
Jeff Smith
That sounds very rosy, but teacher vacancies have gone up 240% since 2011. According to the latest National Education Union poll, 44% of England’s state school teachers plan to quit by 2027—22% of them in the next two years. Things are particularly difficult because experienced teachers—who may have 20 years’ experience—are leaving the profession. What steps is the Minister taking to address pay, stress and an unmanageable workload, which are driving the most experienced teachers out of the profession?
Jonathan Gullis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that great question, because being a teacher is so important and positive, and it is a shame that he used his opportunity to be a bit negative about the profession. As we try to recruit and retain staff, we need people to talk up what a great profession this is to work in. [Interruption.] I am being shouted down by Opposition Members, but there is not a single year of teaching among them—I have nine years’ experience and I get shouted down for simply being someone who worked on the shop floor. The lessons should be learned from the past.
However, let me tell the hon. Gentleman what we are doing. We are making sure that we have the £30,000-a-year starting salary, which is amazingly competitive with the private sector. We are going to have the £181 million in scholarships and grants, including £29,000 in physics, for example. And we are going to make sure that we tackle retention and workload through the Department’s workload toolkit, which has so far reduced workload on average by about five hours.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Wow! This Government have no ambition for our children’s futures: soaring numbers of council schools are in deficit, the attainment gap is at a decade high and the Schools Bill has been ripped up. However, the recruitment and retention of secondary school teachers—not just Prime Ministers—is in crisis. Estimates based on DFE data suggest that the Government are set to fall 34 percentage points below their recruitment target. Will the Minister explain what specific action he will take to stop the rot and fix his own Government’s failure on this issue?
Jonathan Gullis
I am glad the hon. Gentleman has been let out of detention by the Standards Commissioner for the very naughty letter he sent only recently regarding me. However, let me be very clear that the hon. Gentleman is making a point—
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me just say that we want better taste in the House. The Minister is no longer on the Back Benches, so his rhetoric needs to be that of a Minister. I know he has that standing and capability. Come on, Minister!
Jonathan Gullis
Mr Speaker, I am making the point very clearly. The hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to stand at the Dispatch Box and talk up the teaching professions, talk up our schools, and talk up our reforms since 2010-11, which have seen the attainment gap narrowed—that was until, of course, the global pandemic, which has affected every single sector of our economy. Sadly, things have not gone in a way that we would have liked, but we are putting in the effort through the national tutoring programme, the £1.3 billion recovery premium, and the £650 million catch-up premium. That is an awful lot of money going into the system. We are also making sure that teachers are of a high quality, and, most importantly, that they have high-quality mentoring, an initial teaching training round and an early career framework, which give them the support that they need.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)
Local skills improvement plans place employers at the heart of local school systems, facilitating more dynamic working arrangements between employers and training providers to make technical education more responsive to employers’ needs in the area. All areas in England now have a designated employer representative body in place to lead on devising their plans.
James Grundy
Does my hon. Friend agree that institutions such as Wigan and Leigh College which work with employers to create bespoke qualifications that lead directly into in-demand work are an excellent blueprint for other educational institutions to follow?
Andrea Jenkyns
I know that my hon. Friend is a real advocate for colleges in his area and I thank him for his question. Local skills improvement plans will forge stronger and more dynamic partnerships between employers and providers that will enable training to be more responsive to local skills needs. The relationship between Wigan and Leigh College and local employers aligns closely with the aims of this improved collaboration. It is a great example of how stakeholders can work together to meet local skills needs and help people to get good jobs. I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency to see its great work in progress.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I do not know whether the Minister was able to go to the Association of Colleges reception recently, but it was a very good way of meeting all the college leaders. Does she agree that there must be more joined-up thinking and activity between colleges, schools and universities? We were talking about green skills. There seems to be no curriculum at 16 that meshes with that at 18 and 21. I ask her please to talk to colleges and get something moving.
Andrea Jenkyns
I was at a reception for our Love Our Colleges campaign. I am a true advocate on this matter and one thing I am passionate about is the parity of esteem between vocational and technical qualifications and academic qualifications. I ask Members please to put their trust in us as a Government, because we are fully behind all sectors and we are continuing a dialogue between colleges, schools and universities. As I have said, there have never been more options open to young people, and I am completely proud of our record in government.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Kit Malthouse)
This Government are committed to the protection of freedom of speech and academic freedom in universities. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will strengthen existing freedom of speech duties and introduce clear consequences for breaches as well as a duty on universities and colleges to promote the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom.
Andrew Lewer
How my right hon. Friend and his team address the concerns of many that mandating university students and staff to complete training in contested theory such as unconscious bias, like the Radcliffe Department of Medicine’s implicit bias course or the University of Kent’s Expect Respect course, is worrisome, especially given recent data from the King’s College “The state of free speech” report on the increasing reluctance of students to engage in challenging debate.
Kit Malthouse
I know my hon. Friend recognises that universities and colleges are independent organisations. None the less, I share his concerns that where opinions, beliefs or theories that are contested are presented, they should not be presented to young minds alone. The context in which they are created, and indeed the arguments for and against, should be presented to young people. Indeed, it is the duty of those who are tasked with the education of young minds to give the widest possible sense of perspective on all these issues.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)
We are investing in programmes that support science, technology and digital skills so that learners of all ages—including my young son, who is up in the Public Gallery supporting mummy today—are equipped to fulfil careers in the likes of computer numerical control operation. We are delivering on that objective through our skills reform programme, which is putting employers at the heart of our skills system.
Andrew Selous
We need around 1 million more engineers in this country, and among those we need computer numerical control operators, who can earn around £50,000 on the shopfloor. I have engineering businesses in my constituency that are desperate for them. Can we please get on top of ensuring that we have a talent pipeline so that people are well paid and those engineering businesses can flourish?
Andrea Jenkyns
I understand that things are uncertain, as my hon. Friend’s two colleges are merging at the moment, but the level 3 engineering technician apprenticeships provide CNC content and there are more than 140 providers of that training, including three with national coverage. I would also like to look at our T-levels to ensure that we have some of that content in there too.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Kit Malthouse)
The Government are committed to supporting schools. That is why we are investing significantly in education, with a £4 billion increase in the core schools budget this financial year, which will help schools facing the challenges of inflation brought about by global events.
Charlotte Nichols
Schools across my constituency face extraordinary financial pressures, particularly in special educational needs settings where costs per pupil are higher, and in older schools where the Government’s failure to invest in the schools estate means higher costs for heating and repairs. With inflation running out of control, which is an effective 10% cut in real terms to this year’s budgets, senior management teams are desperately worried that they will not be able to balance the books, especially with higher demand for things such as breakfast clubs as parents feel the pinch. Can the Secretary of State please inform us what representations he has made to the Treasury to address the crisis in education funding?
Kit Malthouse
Notwithstanding the significant increase in the schools budget last year, we are monitoring the impact of those global inflationary forces on schools across the whole country. We are in constant conversation with leadership, unions and headteachers about their finances. Perhaps the hon. Lady does not know this, but we acted immediately when it became clear that schools would be severely impacted by the rise in energy costs, to ensure that they were included in the energy bill relief scheme. We continue to have dynamic conversations with Treasury colleagues on the importance of school funding.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Jonathan Gullis)
The Department is working closely with stakeholders to monitor cost pressures on schools. Our generous 2021 spending review package is supporting schools with a £4 billion increase to core schools funding in this financial year alone and we are protecting schools through the energy bill relief scheme, although schools and trusts remain responsible for setting their own budgets. The Government are also assisting families directly: as well as the energy price guarantee for households, we are providing more than £37 billion to help households in the greatest need, thanks to our new Prime Minister.
Bambos Charalambous
Data from a National Association of Headteachers survey shows that 90% of schools expect to run out of money by the end of the next school year. I have spoken to headteachers who say that while school debt is escalating, demands on schools continue to increase, and the energy crisis is only one element of the funding crisis in education. Can the Minister tell me how the Government expect schools in my constituency to deliver standards and provide additional support when they cannot afford to survive?
Jonathan Gullis
As I said in my earlier answer, we have £7 billion until 2024-25 through the spending review. There is the £5 billion in catch-up to maintain standards and ensure that disadvantaged pupils in particular get high-quality support, particularly in tutoring, so that they can catch up on their lost learning, because we know the pandemic had a detrimental impact. There is also the Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Act 2021, which was introduced by a Labour Member, which the Government adopted and sent out as guidance to make sure that the overall cost of uniform comes down. We are taking this all very seriously, and I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and headteachers in his local area to hear from them directly and see what other support we can give.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Schools and Childhood (Kelly Tolhurst)
We are making a transformational investment to support children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, investing £2.6 billion between 2022 and 2025. That investment will deliver new places and improve existing provision for children and young people with SEND or those who require alternative provision, as well as establishing up to 60 new special and AP free schools.
Ian Levy
Over the last few months, I have been working closely with schools in some of the most deprived areas of Blyth Valley. Although schools are doing an amazing job, there is a need for increased special educational needs provision to support the most vulnerable young people. While a new special educational needs school is to be built in Blyth Valley, progress is slow, and I feel that more could be done to address the situation. Will my hon. Friend please meet me to see how we can progress this matter?
Kelly Tolhurst
I share my hon. Friend’s commitment to improving special educational needs provision in Northumberland, particularly in his constituency. The Department is working closely with stakeholders to develop a sustainable solution. The opening of the new free special school has encountered several challenges, but we expect to deliver the school places in the 2023 academic year. As part of our investment in school places for children and young people with SEND, Northumberland is receiving £3.7 million from the fund between 2022 and 2024. I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I recently held a roundtable of headteachers in my constituency. We talked for almost two hours but, sadly, very little of the conversation was about teaching. Instead, we discussed serious issues around recruitment and retention of staff; inadequate funding and severe pressures on budgets; online safety; mental health—theirs and the children’s—and SEND pressures. What are the Government doing to ensure that all schools have the resources they need to provide pupils with special educational needs and disabilities with the support they need while also being able to maintain high-quality teaching and manage the huge range of other pressures that they face?
Kelly Tolhurst
As I mentioned, we are investing £2.6 billion over the next three years in new spaces for SEND and alternative provision. We have also implemented £1.4 billion in high-needs provision capital allocations for local authorities, and £9.1 billion—an increase of 13%—in high-needs funding. The hon. Lady will know that we launched the Green Paper on SEND and AP back in March. We are currently looking at the responses and we hope to respond by the end of the year.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to her place. She inherits the Government’s SEND review, which has caused widespread concern among parents of children with SEND that the Government are seeking simply to reduce expenditure and erode the rights of parents and children to access the support they need. As the Chancellor trawls for departmental cuts to pay for the Government’s reckless economic experiment, can the Minister confirm that the SEND review will not be used as an excuse to erode further the resources that children with special educational needs and disabilities rely on?
Kelly Tolhurst
I can confirm that the SEND and AP Green Paper—the SEND review—was not and is not an opportunity for us to reduce the support that children with special educational needs require in this country. As I have already outlined, we have increased our high-needs funding by 13% to £9.1 billion, and we have also designed a package to support the delivery of any of our reforms. That is a £70 million programme that will test and refine measures in order to ensure that children get the support and education they need, and that parents feel that they have a choice in the matter and are well supported.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Education (Kit Malthouse)
This week we are celebrating National Care Leavers Week. As we celebrate the many success stories, we must also keep working to identify and stamp out any and all abuse. I was therefore shocked and saddened as I started to read the report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse last week. The scale of abuse and exploitation suffered is horrifying. The courage of those who came forward will help improve services to protect children. The inquiry was established by the Government seven years ago. Since then we have taken action to make sure that children are better protected, and I am determined to continue to improve children’s social care so that every child has a safe and loving childhood. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a statement on the matter shortly.
Patricia Gibson
There have been four Secretaries of State for Education in the last year, and nine out of 10 schools in England say that they will run out of money this year. The dogs in the street know that the Government are so unstable as to be unfit for purpose. Does today’s Secretary of State for Education agree with me and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) that the new Prime Minister will face an “ungovernable” and “riven” Tory party and that a general election is the only answer, otherwise things will go from very bad to much worse?
Mr Speaker
What does that have to do with education? I do not think it has anything to do with education, so let us go to Elliot Colburn.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Minister for Schools and Childhood (Kelly Tolhurst)
I am sorry to hear of the issues that my hon. Friend’s constituents have been having and the distress that that is causing for those families. In March, the Government published the SEND and alternative provision Green Paper, which sets out a number of the proposals, including on the education, health and care plans. Those proposals aim to improve the experience and outcomes for those with SEND. The consultation has closed and we plan to publish an improvement plan later in the year.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I begin by welcoming the fourth Education Secretary in the last four months to his place. For the time being, he has the best job in Government. In May, internal Department documents described some school buildings as a “risk to life”. After the Conservatives crashed our economy, does he believe that there should be further cuts to school capital budgets?
Kit Malthouse
I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome. She is absolutely right that this is the best job in Whitehall and, indeed, the most important Department, given that we hold the future of the country literally in our hands. She is right that the comprehensive survey of school premises that the Department undertook revealed some alarming problems, and we are working closely with local education authorities, multi-academy trusts and others to try to rectify those. She will know that we have invested significant amounts of money in the school rebuilding programme. We continue to have conversations with the Treasury about how we may be able to do more.
Bridget Phillipson
As a result of the Conservatives crashing our economy, school leaders are now warning that they will be forced to cut back on equipment, sport and the very staff who enable all our children to achieve and thrive. Last month, I set out Labour’s fully funded, fully costed commitments to end tax breaks for private schools and to invest in breakfast clubs for every child in every primary school in England. If the Secretary of State genuinely believes in delivering a great state education for all our children, why does he not adopt Labour’s plans?
Kit Malthouse
As the hon. Lady will know, we already have breakfast clubs in a number of schools across the country, which are targeted at where they are most needed. Our approach to such issues is to do exactly that: to look for vulnerabilities and the areas that require assistance and then to target funding accordingly. At the start of our hopefully long relationship across the Dispatch Box, I hope that as well as doing her job of challenging the Government to do ever better, she will recognise some of the significant achievements in education over the last decade, not least the fact that 87% of our schools are now good or outstanding and that we stand at our highest ever level in the international league tables for literacy.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Kelly Tolhurst
I do sympathise with Brackenfield School’s predicament. Supporting children and young people with SEND to live fulfilling lives is of paramount importance. The local authority is responsible for deciding on the age range at a maintained school, but I share my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I will investigate what is going on.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The head of the Russell Group has said that the window for the UK to associate to Horizon Europe is “closing fast” and that
“failure to move forward with UK association would be bad news for research.”
What assurance can the Secretary of State give researchers that funding is imminent and that research will be protected at all costs?
Kit Malthouse
Mr Speaker, as I am sure you will have heard from other Ministers, we recognise that science and technology is critical to our future economy, and much of that originates from research within universities and other research bodies. We have made a huge commitment financially to research across the whole of the UK, and that will persist. We are dead keen to join the Horizon programme, but the hon. Member’s question is better directed at our European friends.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Kit Malthouse
As a rural Member myself, I am very alarmed to hear my hon. Friend’s stories. She is right that we should be encouraging schools to educate children about where food comes from, and indeed about the very high standards that UK farmers have produced, not least in animal husbandry, but I have to say that there is a way to intrigue children and make them curious about some of the challenges to climate change brought about by farming. I read recently about an additive made from seaweed that we can add to dairy cows’ feed that reduces the amount of methane they produce. I gather it is in operation very effectively in Australia and being looked at in this country.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Jonathan Gullis)
The hon. Lady knows that I am a huge admirer and fan of hers, which she may not put on any election leaflets. I can tell her that the PE and sport premium is very important to me, especially after the fantastic victory by the Lionesses. They really set the tone with the great work of making sure that sport, particularly football, is more accessible no matter people’s gender, race or anything else, so it is so important that we get this right. I am fully committed to working with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to get that premium, and I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss it further.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
At the end of the first full T-levels cycle, can I commend colleges, including Alton College in my constituency, for their work with employers? What more can be done by Ministers across Government to encourage more employers to come forward and offer industry placements to invest in the talent pipeline, both for their own good and for the good of our entire economy and society?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and I also thank his college. Colleges and sixth forms have been doing amazing work in rolling out T-levels. It is amazing, and I will just give an example before I go on to his question—
Andrea Jenkyns
Topicals—all right. On results day, I visited a local college, and it was amazing—I wish I could bottle that enthusiasm—but my right hon. Friend is right that the key is working with local businesses and industries, which is why the whole programme was designed with them in mind.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Kit Malthouse
As I said earlier, we recognise that schools are under significant pressure, as is most of society, and we must work together to try to get through it in good shape. We will obviously be making representations to Treasury colleagues as we move towards a statement on Friday, and indeed beyond, about what those pressures are, so that the Chancellor and new Prime Minister—hooray—can make choices within a priority framework that reflects the priorities of the Government.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
Ministers will be aware that at the weekend it was reported that the school in England that has recorded the best Progress 8 score, and the best measure of how much value is added during time in the classroom, is Michaela Community School in Wembley. Michaela is a free school. It encourages students to study EBacc subjects, and it is Ofsted outstanding. The Labour party opposed the creation of free schools, opposed the EBacc, and wanted to abolish Ofsted. What lessons can we learn from that?
Kit Malthouse
My right hon. Friend puts his finger on the point exactly. He will be pleased to know that only 10 days ago I visited Michaela school to see exactly what goes on, having heard an awful lot about it and indeed having watched the moving documentary about the work done there. I confess to being rather alarmed by the aggression that that school attracts from the wider educational establishment, particularly on social media. Although the head of that school is obviously very outspoken, she is outspoken because it seems she has a cause. It was gratifying at the weekend to see that in the Progress 8 scores she proved that she was right.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Despite my private Member’s Bill, Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms), becoming law to reduce the cost of school uniforms, far too many schools have their heads in the sand, with logos upon logos, emblems upon emblems, and they are not responding to the requirements of the law. What will Ministers do about that?
Jonathan Gullis
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the passage of his Bill, which is an important piece of legislation. Guidance is clear: schools should be considerate when wanting their own branding, and ensure that it is done in a fair and sustainable way for households. If the hon. Gentleman has any examples or wishes to meet to discuss the issue further so that guidance can be given to schools, I would be more than happy to arrange that.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Why are adoption figures continuing to fall?
Kelly Tolhurst
This past year adoptions have gone up, but it is on a lower trajectory. One potential reason for that is that in 2013 a court ruling confirmed that adoption orders should be made only when there is no alternative provision. That has led to an increase in special guardianships. We will obviously keep the issue under review. The time that it is taking for children to be adopted has reduced, and we want to ensure that no child remains in care any longer than they need to be, and that we find supportive parents for them.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Off-rolling is a hidden crisis happening in some of our schools, with black schoolboys being disproportionately affected by the practice, and many being given only a few formal hours of teaching, if any at all. We should be outraged at that, given the attainment gap and the disproportionate numbers of black children who are being excluded from school. What action is the Secretary of State taking to tackle the crisis of off-rolling, and will he ensure that all schools that engage in that practice are recording the numbers affected, including their ethnicity, age and gender?
Jonathan Gullis
Off-rolling is totally unacceptable, and no school should be doing that or using it as a method. Where there are unruly children, we must also balance that carefully by ensuring that headteachers have the power to remove them from the classroom, because their impact has a detrimental impact on the other 29 in the class. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady to look at any examples she can provide, so that we can call out schools and school leaders who are using that tactic inappropriately. The Department is monitoring the issue and taking it seriously.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Arden is one of the most successful schools in my constituency and the country, despite the majority of its buildings having been built pre-1958 and it accommodating three times as many pupils as was originally intended. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss Arden’s proposal for investment through the school rebuilding programme so that we can support it to be the best that it can be?
Jonathan Gullis
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for the constituency of Meriden and indeed for the school rebuilding programme. He will understand that I cannot comment as the bid is in and the Department must go through a process, but I am more than happy to arrange a meeting for him with my noble Friend Baroness Barran, who is the Minister responsible for this portfolio area.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Why has the Secretary of State dropped the Schools Bill?
Kit Malthouse
As the right hon. Member will know, the legislative timetable is under review—or it was, under the previous Prime Minister. We wait for the opinion of the new Prime Minister as to his priorities in the months to come. We will have to wait and see what we has to say.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
As I hope the House knows, I am a passionate supporter of the power and creativity of engineering and its ability to address the most serious challenges that we face globally. Will my hon. Friend agree to look at the curriculum for opportunities to improve the teaching and understanding of engineering?
Jonathan Gullis
My hon. Friend will know that in March 2022 the Department introduced the “engineers teach physics” programme to help recruit high-quality engineers into our workforce. Because of the pilot’s success, the programme has been extended across the country for the 2023-24 recruitment cycle. I am more than happy to see how much more we can do to ensure that science, technology, engineering and maths are driven through the heart of the curriculum, alongside EBacc, which is vital to helping to educate everyone.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am sure that the Secretary of State is as concerned as I am about the number of children attending school who are hungry. Has he made any representations to the Department for Work and Pensions about raising the £7,400 household income eligibility threshold for free school meals?
Kit Malthouse
As the right hon. Member would expect, we are in constant conversation with not just the DWP but the Treasury about the impact of the global fight against inflation that so many families face. It would be wrong for me to front-run what may be announced on Friday, but she can be assured that we constantly put in front of colleagues the pressures on families putting kids into schools as well as those on schools.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Even the drama in this place does not match the daily drama of the childcare juggle, so we must listen to millions of mums and dads who are asking for affordable and flexible childcare options in a system that is effectively not fit for purpose. Will my right hon. Friend reassure parents and early years educators that the Department is looking at that closely? Will he work with me and the think-tank Onward to bring about reforms?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is quite right that the childcare system—not through anything other than an accident of increasing numbers of ministerial initiatives—has become complicated to the extent that there is not enough availability and it is not affordable or flexible enough. For example, some of the payment mechanisms are complex, not least tax-free childcare, so we have not seen the take-up that we expected when that was introduced. We are reviewing the entire process from end to end. She can be assured that we are looking not just to tinker, but, hopefully—with the blessing of the new Prime Minister—at something that will really provide a reformed system to give her and other parents exactly what they are looking for.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
On Friday, I received an email from the acting headteacher of Reay Primary School in my constituency. She said that
“many of our children are hungry. Our cook is providing as much as she can but the children want more. This tells me that the children must be missing out on food at home. We are going to provide bread”
but the school needs more money.
I have listened to the Secretary of State answer many questions about the cost of living crisis that parents face, but parents and teachers cannot wait. What more can he do to address this now?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I say to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) that this is topicals and other people want to get in? We are going to go over the time now. We have got to help each other.
Jonathan Gullis
The hon. Lady will understand—she is a fantastic champion for her constituents—that the current global economic state is very serious. Inflation is not unique to this country. For example, it is at 17% in Holland and 10.9% in Germany. We are very aware of the pressures on households, which is why the £4 billion front-loading in the spending review has been so important, with the additional funding for the national tutoring programme, the recovery premium and the catch-up premium, the £2.5 billion for the pupil premium and the free school meals programme.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
Fairer funding has been a manifesto commitment for our party on many occasions. I campaigned for it from the Back Benches and tried to deliver it from the Front Bench. Whatever the timing of legislation, can the Secretary of State confirm that a direct national funding formula is a legislative priority for his Department?
Kit Malthouse
I can confirm that work is well under way on exactly that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The independent review of children’s social care highlighted the cost of the failure of residential care settings—both the financial cost and, most importantly, the cost to children of failed care. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to improve that care and to ensure that we move from a marketised system to a regional system, as suggested?
Kelly Tolhurst
As the hon. Lady is aware, we are currently evaluating the three reports issued earlier this year, in particular the independent review of children’s social care. I have been working flat out since I was appointed to this role to make sure we are able to bring forward a response to it with an implementation plan to ensure that all young people in our care system are looked after, but also that there are answers and options to move forward.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Children from all over the country, quite a few of whom are in my constituency, are being home educated by parents who, unfortunately, cannot themselves read or write. What are we going to do to ensure we value the education and life chances of every single child, and do not leave home educated children behind?
Kit Malthouse
It is absolutely the right of parents to decide to educate their children at home should they so wish, but as a society we have a duty to make sure they get exactly the kind of education that everybody else is getting. My hon. Friend has championed the issue in many other forums, particularly as it affects his constituency, and I would be happy to hear his ideas on how we may go further.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the Secretary of State looked at the full potential for education of technology to improve performance in schools? Other countries are using it in more sophisticated ways, so has he looked at it?
Jonathan Gullis
We want the education sector to have access to best-in-class technology, but schools need reliable internet to deploy it. That is why we are spending £232 million to improve school internet connectivity by 2025.
Members Sworn or Affirmed
Mr Speaker
Order. I now invite remaining Members to swear the Oath or make the solemn Affirmation to His Majesty. We will suspend at about 3.45 pm before resuming our substantive business at approximately 3.50 pm. Let us now begin. I invite Members who have not yet sworn or affirmed to do so.
Members present took and subscribed the Oath, or made and subscribed the Affirmation.
Great British Railways
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the future of Great British Railways.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Kevin Foster)
The case for rail modernisation is now stronger than when Keith Williams set out the plan for rail in 2021. Covid-19, recent macroeconomic events, industrial relations and financial challenges have increased the need for it. The railways are not meeting customers’ needs, with delays, unreliability and uncertainty exacerbated by the rail strikes. When people look at the rail sector, we need them to see a system that stands for reliability and sustainability, so it is clear that we have to change.
This Government will therefore deliver the most ambitious changes to our railways in a generation, and will deliver for the people who matter: our passengers, customers and taxpayers. Although we will not be introducing rail reform legislation during the current Session, due to limits on parliamentary time, we are committed to introducing the legislation necessary to create a guiding mind, Great British Railways, as soon as possible.
As many Members are aware, a competition was run to identify the location for the Great British Railways headquarters. I welcome the support of colleagues for the six shortlisted towns and cities, and I note that the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) has been vocal in her support for York to be the winner. I hope to be able to announce the successful location shortly—subject to other events outside the Chamber. Ahead of the legislation, we will continue to work with the Great British Railways transition team and the wider sector to push ahead with our ambitious modernisation programme to deliver real benefits for customers.
Reforming our railways means more reliable trains, faster journey times—in all, a modern, future-facing rail industry; a sector with an unswerving focus on meeting the needs of its customers, creating a simpler, better railway for communities across Britain. There will be a GBR at the heart of our rail network, with its headquarters located in one of our great railway communities. The details will be confirmed shortly, but our commitment to deliver is unchanged.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
Following the publication for the House of the Williams-Shapps review, the Government announced in the Queen’s Speech on 10 May 2022:
“Legislation will be introduced to modernise rail services and improve reliability for passengers”.
As part of this process, the then Transport Secretary launched a high-profile competition for the location of the headquarters outside London. Forty-two locations bid and six were shortlisted, including York, as part of the levelling-up agenda. Each location shortlisted hosted a ministerial visit over the summer of 2022, involving public sector, rail industry and community stakeholders. In parallel, the public participated in a public vote over their preferred destination. All this was at significant cost to local authorities. Last Wednesday, the Secretary of State shelved her plans for this Session. No written or oral statement has been made to the House until today.
Let me therefore ask the following questions. Why did the Secretary of State not have the courtesy to announce her U-turn on Great British Railways to the House? If the relocation of the new headquarters is to proceed, what will the process be, and if not, given that hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent by local authorities, how will the Secretary of State compensate shortlisted authorities? What was the result of the public vote? What are the reasons for shelving the plans for the future of Great British Railways in the current Session? How, in the interim, will the Secretary of State address the failure issues across the rail network that Great British Railways was to resolve, including contract failure on the west coast main line and elsewhere? What discussions has she had with the trade unions on abandoning her plans, and on the implications for the workforce across the rail sector? Is she now abandoning Williams-Shapps, levelling up, and any semblance of government? The Great British public deserve better.
Kevin Foster
I think it is worth pointing out that the comments referred to were made to a Select Committee of this House, the Transport Committee, and that the Secretary of State was therefore giving information in her role as Transport Secretary and keeping Members up to date. As I touched on in my initial answer, there will be a Great British Railways HQ located in one of our great railway communities. I am sorry to disappoint people, but I will not be announcing from the Dispatch Box today where that will be, but it is something that we are committed to doing. It has been inspiring to see the excitement about the competition; it shows what rail can bring to local communities. Certainly there will be a successful bidder, so to speak, and they will be announced in the not-too-distant future.
Yes, the Secretary of State has met the general secretaries of the leading trade unions involved in the rail sector, but that was not to discuss abandoning the plan, because we have not abandoned the plan. We are still taking forward a range of work to reform and modernise our railways, and there is plenty we can do, even in the absence of a Bill in the third Session. I am confident that Great British Railways will make a difference to our rail network. It would be tempting, in these interesting circumstances in which I come to the Dispatch Box, to make a raft of pledges on things I would quite like to do with the railways, but we are certainly conscious that we need to reform and move forward, and that is something that most people across the sector realise. There might be slightly different views about exactly how to go about that, but I am keen to see it taken forward to make the difference for our customers and communities, who deserve a rail network that delivers for them.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It was in the Transport Committee that the Secretary of State gave us this news about Great British Railways. I understand the concern about her not coming to the Dispatch Box to do so, but surely everybody supports the concept of a Select Committee getting fresh information from those who come before it. The Secretary of State also told us that the guiding mind of Great British Railways can still be advanced without legislation, because there is a lot that can be brought forward and very few parts of it need legislation. Can the Minister set out some of the ideas that would see the guiding mind being brought forward, notwithstanding the fact that the legislation would be slightly lagging behind?
Kevin Foster
The Chair of the Transport Committee is absolutely right to highlight the role that his Committee can play as a group of experienced, and in some cases expert, Members who can analyse issues and question Ministers on their performance. It is appropriate to use a Select Committee as a place to engage and discuss where Government’s thinking is going. What can be achieved without legislation includes workforce reform, delivering local partnerships, bringing forward a more long-term strategy for rail and reforming how we use ticketing. I think we all recognise that post-pandemic far fewer people are buying season tickets compared with on-the-day tickets, and we are looking at the changes that may flow from that changing pattern. There is still plenty that we can be cracking on with and delivering at the initial stage of reform without having primary legislation as part of it.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
As usual, this Government are in chaos of their own making. We would not be standing here today if they were capable of making commitments and sticking to them. They are stopping a project in its tracks despite millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money already having been spent. They are asking towns and cities to invest precious time and money in their headquarters bids but completely mothballing the relevant legislation in any transport Bill within this parliamentary Session. They are showing a serious lack of ambition and long-term vision and leaving the whole of the rail industry in the lurch.
I asked the rail Minister about this very issue in the last Transport questions but was effectively fobbed off. We should not be surprised at that, considering the mess they have made of our railways. Last week 55 services on the TransPennine Express were cancelled in just one day, and two of our northern Mayors could not travel to Liverpool for a press briefing on train cancellations because of train cancellations. Avanti West Coast has slashed more than 220,000 seats per week, but despite this, one of the Transport Secretary’s first acts was to ensure that a lucrative contract extension was in place. As usual, the Tories are rewarding failure. People across our country are paying the price for a system that the Conservative party has already admitted must change but refuses to say how or when. The Conservatives promised at their party conference, with a straight face, to get Britain moving, yet all we have seen is stoppages, strikes and the managed decline of our railways, and now they are abandoning their flagship policy as a direct result of their aimless and distracted party. They are a shambolic Government with no plan and no ideas.
Will the Minister clarify the future of Great British Railways? Has it been stopped in its tracks? When will his Department get a grip on the railways and deliver a proper service for passengers across our country?
Kevin Foster
Luckily, I have already answered the hon. Gentleman’s first question. We have certainly not brought Great British Railways to a halt. Again, we said the location of its headquarters will be announced shortly. This has not been stopped, abandoned or any of the other things we are hearing from the Labour party. We are very clear that we want to look forward to a rail network that is seeing massive, almost unprecedented investment, and in which customers can look forward to better facilities and better services that deliver for their communities. I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to look back wistfully at British Rail.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
It is clear we have a very busy legislative programme, but that does not necessarily mean we have to stop things like fares reform, network efficiency, flexible ticketing or encouraging more people back on to our railways. Those things do not need legislation; they just need progression. This time will allow my hon. Friend to ensure a significant role for the private sector in rail reform and, of course, to further consider the merits of York as the location of the headquarters of Great British Railways.
Kevin Foster
I could not have put it better myself. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a range of things we can take forward, not least fares reform and innovative practices such as last year’s rail sale. There is plenty of work that can still be done, and we will certainly be getting on with it.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The rail industry and GBR are in stasis, and there is little evidence of progress coming from the Department for Transport. Six months ago, the previous Secretary of State promised we “would not be disappointed” with the legislation to create GBR, but I am feeling distinctly underwhelmed. The Williams review promised that GBR will
“take a whole-system view, allowing it to make choices and decisions more effectively. It will enable the railways to be run as a public service”.
That vision lies in tatters for now. We know that long-term thinking and planning are key, but instead we have a piecemeal, stop-start process that will take years, if not decades, to achieve real change in a key part of our national infrastructure.
When can we expect anybody, GBR or otherwise, to take a whole-system view of rail in this country? With ScotRail back in public ownership, there is one part of the UK where the railways are run as a public service. Will the Minister use the transport mini-Bill to devolve Network Rail to Scotland, to ensure that a fully integrated and fully publicly owned railway can be run somewhere in the UK?
Kevin Foster
I can understand why not having an integrated rail network across Great Britain is a particular priority for the Scottish National party. It clearly is a priority for this UK Government. We will not be looking to devolve responsibility for rail infrastructure, not least because the SNP’s main idea at the moment seems to be stopping the trains for passport control at the border.
On the wider pitch, we are determined to make a difference with our railways. We are seeing real innovation, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have looked at, for example, the experience of Lumo trains from Edinburgh to London. Lumo is an open-access operator that is pulling traffic away from air and on to rail, which is exactly what we want to see. We will get on with the many reforms we can make without primary legislation, but one of them will not be creating a disjointed rail network.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
When will the Government and railway companies come forward with proposals for an improved pattern of services that attracts many more fare-paying passengers? We need to get the deficit down very quickly and the best way of doing so is by getting more people paying fares willingly.
Kevin Foster
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Clearly, demand patterns have changed dramatically during the pandemic. For example, a lot fewer people are commuting into London at 7 am to 9 am and then leaving between 5 pm and 7 pm, or they are doing that three or four days a week rather than five, so there is a need to look at how we can adapt. We are giving slightly more flexibility to some operating companies, and looking at how we use our ticketing and, in particular, our ticket pricing. The rail sale was a great way of getting a lot of people on to trains that might otherwise have been relatively quiet, producing new revenue to the railways. In addition, as I said in response to the SNP spokesperson, Lumo is targeting traffic that goes by air to get it on tracks.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
My constituents would really struggle to describe British railways as “great”, because their lives are made a misery by Avanti and TransPennine, which continually cancel trains, leading to their missing job interviews, school and education. Today, a commute that should have taken me two and a half hours took me almost five—I only just made it in time for Education questions. May I ask the Minister why on earth his Government extended the contract with Avanti? Frankly, my constituents do not understand why.
Kevin Foster
We made it clear when we extended the contract for only six months that it was a probationary period, to allow Avanti to implement the recovery plan that it has and is intending to bring forward in December. We will judge whether to extend its contract any further based on how that goes.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The rail Minister is right to talk about the need for rail reform, but may I urge him to use the couple of months of extra time that he has won by postponing legislation to revisit some core conclusions of the Williams-Shapps review, which are out of date because they are based on work done before the pandemic? He has mentioned the changes in customer demand and we need to rethink some crucial things, particularly the role of Great British Railways as the fat controller and a central planner rather than a genuine slimline system operator.
Kevin Foster
I am keen that GBR adapts to the changes we have seen since the pandemic, but we are seeing this across the whole industry and in the discussions the train operating companies want to have with Government. We will certainly use any time we have to ensure that our proposals make a difference and have the most positive impact for customers and communities.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
My constituents were recently informed by Southeastern of huge timetable changes, with the result that they will have to make significant amendments to their commutes. Southeastern did that with no public consultation, despite being a publicly owned franchise. Will the Minister ensure that Southeastern goes back to consult, so that rail users have their voices heard before such significant changes are made?
Kevin Foster
I am aware that Southeastern is taking feedback on its proposals. It is important that it engages with communities and, in particular, with their representatives in this House. Given the number of changes that have had to be made in the past couple of years, there is more flexibility for operators, including those that are publicly owned, to react to emerging patterns of demand. However, I understand that Southeastern will be listening and looking at the feedback it gets on its proposed changes.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
The Minister has been brilliantly clear that the creation of GBR will play a significant part in levelling up transport connectivity in the north and midlands, but he also knows that it is vital to ensure that London and the home counties are better connected. Travel times from my constituency, and particularly from Camberley, Frimley and Bagshot, to London have not improved since the age of Queen Victoria. Will he put a Stephenson’s Rocket up the fundament of those bureaucrats who have been standing in the way of the progress my constituents require?
Kevin Foster
Presumably it would be more like putting an electrified Michael on the case as well. Demands have changed, particularly in London and the south-east. We are seeing the results of investment, particularly that which my right hon. Friend was instrumental in helping to secure during his time in the Cabinet, for example, with the opening of Bond Street station to passengers this morning. People are starting to see major improvements in London and the south-east, but I accept that they will also look to what is happening on their local line and I will be happy to discuss with him what could be done on the one he cites.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The setting up of Great British Railways was meant to include ticketing and pricing, and the cost of commuting continues to weigh heavily on my constituents, particularly during the cost of living crisis. Furthermore, if we want to encourage people on to the trains and out of their cars, it is key that we make trains affordable. The Department for Transport has said that it will not put up regulated rail fares by 12.3%, in line with July’s retail prices index, but will the Minister commit to freezing rail fares next January, to help with the cost of living crisis and the fight against climate change?
Kevin Foster
It is worth saying that there are a range of fares available on our railways, particularly in London and the south-east, where people use pay as you go and contactless bank cards. We have said that we will not take the normal approach—which also existed during the coalition—of using the RPI figure to set fares next year, and a fair rise has been delayed. We look forward to introducing plans that strike a balance between a railway that is affordable for not only the taxpayer but customers and communities.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The pandemic and the reckless strike actions we have seen have caused significant disruption to our rail services. Does my hon. Friend agree that the focus should now be on restoring services and maximising investment in improving stations—for example, by reopening the stations at Meir and Trentham in my constituency?
Kevin Foster
I am always pleased at the Dispatch Box to hear colleagues argue passionately for the reinstatement and further expansion of parts of our rail network. It has also been good to engage with Members on both sides of the House on the Restoring Your Railways project, and our goal is to get services restored. A lot of passengers are coming back on to the railways, and we are keen to see that, but people must have the confidence to come back, and that is where industrial action is so damaging. We are looking to restore many services, but we also have to take account of the fact that patterns of demand have changed, particularly in relation to commuting between 7 am and 9 am and between 5 pm and 7 pm, given the changes in the wider economy.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
As the birthplace of British railways, Newcastle has bid to be the home of GBR, so will the Minister tell us what we would win if we were to win? The last Prime Minister, or perhaps she is still the Prime Minister—I am not sure, because I cannot keep up with Tory chaos; anyway, it was a recent Prime Minister—committed to the implementation in full of Northern Powerhouse Rail, so will the Minister also tell us whether that commitment will outlast the transport Bill?
Kevin Foster
The NPR statement from the Prime Minister was very welcome, and it was welcomed on both sides of the House. The winning community will be very much the headquarters of the UK’s railways, and I very much look forward to announcing—subject to some of the things that have been alluded to—the successful town or city in the near future.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
In the spring and early summer this year I spent many days campaigning and collecting signatures for a petition for Doncaster—the greatest railway town in the country—to become the home of the Great British Railways headquarters. Will the Minister confirm that my boot leather was not wasted and that Doncaster is still very much in the running?
Kevin Foster
I am glad to hear of the effort my hon. Friend put in. I can see a couple of colleagues in the Chamber who will agree with his views about Doncaster, and others who might suggest other communities instead. As I have said, there will be a winner and there will be a headquarters for Great British Railways, and I genuinely hope to be the person to announce that fairly soon.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am sure we would all agree that failure should not be rewarded with promotion or long contract extensions. I hope we would also agree that Great British Railways will never be truly great without the considerable investment needed in infrastructure across our rail network. Will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify the Government’s progress on the Network Rail enhancements pipeline, given that a report published today noted that there had been no progress on one third of all the projects since the plan was published for 2019-24?
Kevin Foster
The updated rail network enhancements pipeline will be published in due course—shortly might be another way of putting it. But I look at the investment that we are putting into our railways and see £96 billion in the integrated rail plan. I look at the fact that the first major mainline in this country since the Victorian era is under construction now and is on its way to Birmingham, then Crewe and then Manchester. That level of investment in our railways is unprecedented in most of our lifetimes, and it is very welcome.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I declare a very personal interest in this matter, Mr Speaker. In the past three days, I have tried to make four journeys between Manchester, Edinburgh and London. Two were more than half an hour late, three were cancelled and one was then uncancelled when the driver of the preceding cancelled train turned up after all and was able to drive my train. However, I say to the Minister, because he has talked about ticketing and pricing, that there is a particular issue where different companies serve the same destinations and charge different and non-interchangeable prices. Can that be addressed ahead of legislation?
Kevin Foster
The hon. Lady makes a fair point about making sure that ticket prices are able to be clearly understood by customers and consumers and that they are fair overall. However, open access operators, for example Lumo from Edinburgh, provide a different pricing plan which is of benefit to customers. It is something that we are keen to see simplified and an area on which we look to work.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Bedford residents are sick and tired of waiting for a detailed decision on East West Rail. Some are finding it difficult to sell blighted homes. Others are living under the spectre of their homes being demolished if plans in their current form go ahead through Bedford. Shockingly, we are still waiting for a response to the consultation that ended a year and a half ago, in which time there have been three rail Ministers. Will the Minister put an end to this chaos and confirm when the plans will be published?
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Member for raising East West Rail, a major investment we are making in improving connectivity across our country, driving economic growth and revitalising rail lines, some of which have some of the least used stations in the whole country, which will soon become much more vibrant hubs for their local community. We look forward to confirming further details on stages 2 and 3, in particular between Bedford and Cambridge, in the near future.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It seems to my constituents that improving efficiency involves cutting trains altogether; they cannot be late if they do not run. I have lost three peak-time train services on the Sidcup line that serves New Eltham and Mottingham and two peak-time train services in the morning at Eltham and Falconwood on the Bexleyheath line and at Kidbrooke. The Minister says that Southeastern is listening, but the reason it is not, as Southeastern told the scrutiny panel at Greenwich Council last week, is that it sought and got permission from the Department for Transport to make these cuts without consultation. Will the Minister go away and ensure that there is proper consultation and that we run train services that people actually want?
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Member for his points. As he will be aware, the process for changing timetables has been altered over the past couple of years, again, because of the radically changing demand during the pandemic. As traffic returns, we can see that it is not returning in a uniform way across the whole network. A quick look at some of the rail usage statistics would show that. But we do expect Southeastern to be responsive to the feedback that it is getting, although I take on board the fact that, particularly at peak times in London, there have been shifts in public demand.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The former Transport Secretary was very keen to try to steal Labour’s clothes with the announcement of Great British Railways, no doubt mindful that the overwhelming majority of voters support nationalisation. Sadly, his version of Great British Railways was not the real deal. I am sure that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench will be more than happy to take the Minister or his successor through Labour’s White Paper, “GB Rail: Labour’s plan for a nationally integrated publicly owned railway”. Would the Minister like to take up the offer?
Kevin Foster
It is extremely kind of the hon. Gentleman to offer to take me through a Labour party policy document. However, I would rather stick with the plan for rail that is the Government’s policy—the one that we will continue to take forward. My focus will always be, not on dogma, but on whether customers and communities are being served. Considering the way Labour Members try to portray British Rail as a panacea of customer services, I suggest they look back on some of the old news reports about how it used to operate.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The long-awaited transport Bill, which has now been abandoned despite having been in the Queen’s Speech just months ago, was not just going to deliver Great British Railways, but address a whole range of pressing and long-overdue transport problems in this country: the menace of pavement parking, regulating e-scooters and so on. Is not the reason for this chaos that we do not have, and have not had for some months, a functioning Government? Would it not be more democratic and better if there was a general election and we had a Government with a mandate that was united to address the pressing problems the country faces?
Kevin Foster
It is interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman say he wants to see the legislative timetable accelerated and, in the same breath, that he wants to dissolve Parliament. We will get on with the job and leave the politicking to others.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Minister says he is getting on with the job, so can he please get on with the job for passengers facing daily misery in Hull? TransPennine Express cancels dozens of services every day, causing real problems for commuters. It is also responsible for the toilets at Hull station, but cannot even manage to keep those clean and maintained. Can he ensure that TransPennine honours its contractual obligations and, if it cannot, that he terminates its contract?
Kevin Foster
Certainly we will be keen to ensure TransPennine is not just offering a bog-standard service to the right hon. Lady’s constituents. If the company is not honouring its contract, we will certainly be happy to pick that up with it and ensure that it does.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I declare an interest, as a big supporter of the Doncaster bid, but I share the frustration of many across local government who have committed time and money in good faith to a process that so far has not delivered an outcome. Given that uncertainty, and the need to confirm the Government’s intentions for Northern Powerhouse Rail, which the Minister mentioned a moment ago, does he agree that there is an urgent requirement for the Secretary of State or a senior member of the Government to come to the House and provide clarity about the Government’s intentions in this particular area?
Kevin Foster
I have already made clear that we will—hopefully I will—look to make an announcement around the result of the headquarters competition for Great British Railways. I take on board the points made by a number of hon. Members about wishing to have a decision on which of our great railway communities will host that HQ. On the second point about Northern Powerhouse Rail, the hon. Gentleman will have heard the commitment. We are keen to engage with the region and key stakeholders, including Members of Parliament representing the communities, about how we turn the vision into a hard plan for delivery.
Doncaster Sheffield Airport
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make a statement on the imminent closure of Doncaster Sheffield airport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Katherine Fletcher)
Following the strategic review of the airport announced in July this year, the Government are incredibly disappointed that Peel Group has taken the difficult decision to announce the potential closure of Doncaster Sheffield airport. While it was a commercial decision made by the owners of the airport, I fully appreciate the impact it has had not only on passengers who use the airport, including the constituents represented by many hon. Members in the South Yorkshire region, but on those businesses, organisations and people who work at the airport and within the supply chain.
As I know from growing up underneath the flightpath of Manchester airport, regional airports are key in serving our local communities, supporting thousands of jobs in the regions and acting as a key gateway to international opportunities. That is why during the pandemic the Government supported airports through schemes such as the airport and ground operations support scheme, through which Doncaster Sheffield airport was able to access grant funding.
I need to be clear that, while the UK Government support airports, they do not own or operate them. However, devolved Administrations, local and combined authorities are frequently shareholders in airports that serve their communities, as is the case with Manchester Airports Group, Birmingham airport, London Luton airport and, most recently, Teesside International. The UK aviation market operates predominantly in the private sector. Airports invest in their infrastructure to attract airlines and passengers. We will continue to support all parties to seek a commercial or local solution.
Since the announcement by Peel Group on the airport’s future on 13 July, the Government have been actively working with local stakeholders to encourage a future for aviation at the site. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and the Department for Transport have met Peel, and I understand that the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority and Doncaster Council have been working during the review to explore options for a locally led solution. The local authorities have now written to Peel Group to pass on the details of those who are interested in potential options to invest in the airport, and I understand that Peel has begun to engage with those parties.
The aviation Minister, Baroness Vere, met Peel on 19 October and strongly encouraged it to look seriously at any commercial interest. She has also been proactively encouraging Peel Group to strongly consider the local and combined authorities’ offers of bridging support if it requires extra time to take forward any discussions with investors.
The Government remain engaged and we look forward to seeing further progress. The House has today highlighted the importance of Doncaster, and I will convey the strength of feeling among Members present to Baroness Vere as she continues her work. I call on Peel Group to continue to work with stakeholders to find a commercial solution or to minimise the impact of its review of the airport.
Stephanie Peacock
Doncaster Sheffield airport is an important regional economic asset with thousands of jobs dependent on it. Despite Peel Group’s announcement of its closure, local leaders have made every effort to work with the group and press the Government to secure the airport’s future. The South Yorkshire Mayor made Peel Group an offer of public money to keep the airport running, and local leaders have helped to find three potential investors who are seriously interested in keeping the airport operational, but those efforts have met resistance at every turn. Having already run the airport down, Peel Group is still refusing to confirm whether it is willing to suspend its closure, or whether it is even in a position to sell Doncaster Sheffield Airport Ltd.
Meanwhile, the Secretary of State, who could not even be bothered to turn up today, will not engage with interested parties and is refusing to invoke powers such as those in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to protect the airport. She refused three times on the Floor of the House to meet local leaders and is yet to respond to a petition signed by more than 125,000 people, despite assurances from the outgoing Prime Minister that the Secretary of State would address the issue “immediately” and “protect the airport”. Actions speak louder than words. Having created a climate of uncertainty, neither Peel Group nor the Government are using the powers and influence they have to explore every option to ensure the airport’s future. That is not good enough—for workers, for businesses, or for all of us who rely on the emergency services stationed at the airport.
I thank Doncaster Council, the South Yorkshire Mayor, my right hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton) and for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). Local leaders want the Government to work with us rather than taking a hands-off approach. Potential investors in the airport need certainty in the next 24 hours. It is imperative that Ministers step up, take action and use their powers to do everything they can to save Doncaster Sheffield airport.
Katherine Fletcher
The hon. Lady speaks with passion and partisanship in not mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher). I think she is a little late to the party; even a cursory glance at my hon. Friend’s social media feed will show that he is on day 105 of his campaign to save Doncaster airport. He has met a series of different parties, and it is slightly beneath the hon. Lady not to recognise his efforts to protect his local community.
Baroness Vere, the aviation Minister, met Peel on 19 October, and it assures her that it is open to meeting potential investors. The Secretary of State has met Peel twice. The implication that we are not doing everything to find a solution for regional airports, which we recognise are incredibly important, is not correct.
I am sure that the Civil Contingencies Act will come up in other questions, so let me allude to it briefly. The Civil Contingencies Act is for absolute emergencies only. Even one of the operators at the airport has written to the Prime Minister to explain that it can still find contingency efforts elsewhere, so the threshold for the last Labour Government’s legislation has nowhere near been met.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee, Huw Merriman.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
This issue also came up in the Transport Committee session with the Secretary of State. We asked her whether there would be any intervention. She made it clear that it would not be financial, but that all technical assistance would be offered in the hope that there would be a solution similar to that for Teesside International Airport, where the Mayor of the Tees Valley found a solution.
Huw Merriman
I ask the Minister, notwithstanding the disrespect from the sidelines, whether she can provide more detail about what that technical assistance could be for those of us in the Chamber who do not think it is a laughing matter.
Katherine Fletcher
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for the question. As I do not have the aviation portfolio, I will not commit from the Dispatch Box to things that are not exactly accurate; I will ask Baroness Vere to write to him with the specifics of the technical assistance. I do know that there have repeated meetings at a number of levels. When it comes to regional airports, he makes a good point. As I outlined in my opening remarks, in Manchester, Liverpool and the Tees Valley, among others, local authorities are investing to support a commercial solution. That option is available to the South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority and to Doncaster Council in this case.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I like the Minister very much and I wish her well in her ministerial duties, but she is not the aviation Minister; the Secretary of State should be here to answer this urgent question. A critical regional airport is days away from closure and she cannot be bothered to turn up. What message does it send to the people of South Yorkshire, 125,000 of whom signed a petition to keep the airport open, that she will not attend the Chamber and cannot even attend meetings with South Yorkshire MPs and leaders to discuss how we can protect Doncaster Sheffield airport? The Government have repeatedly refused to meet the Mayor of South Yorkshire and other regional leaders to discuss what options are open. It is truly a slap in the face to the hundreds of people whose jobs currently hang in the balance.
When the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss)—the Prime Minister for the next few hours at least—came to Yorkshire, she gave a commitment on behalf of the Government to protect Doncaster Sheffield airport. That commitment must outlast her Government, not least because this airport is of strategic significance: it has one of the longest runways in Britain, it is the base for the National Police Air Service, and it is a home to national coastguard operations.
Thanks to the leadership of the Mayor of South Yorkshire, credible investors have been identified, but it is obvious that the Peel Group never had any intention of negotiating in good faith, so it is not an option for Doncaster Council or the Mayor to purchase shares in the airport, given that the Peel Group is refusing to sell. It is willing to let the airport close, to let infrastructure be degraded and to remove any chance of its being reopened in future.
The case for action from the Government is crystal clear. The use of emergency powers under the Civil Contingencies Act is the only possible measure to keep the airport running. Potential investors have made it clear that the Secretary of State’s refusal to use those powers is creating far greater uncertainty and instability, and is making purchase at any point in future even more unlikely. Can the Minister outline precisely why the Secretary of State has refused to consider the use of the Act? That decision is political, so it is beholden on her to explain to the people of South Yorkshire why she refuses to use it. If she continues to refuse, will the Minister lay out what powers exist anywhere else that could keep the airport running?
As we await the third Prime Minister in seven weeks, there is less than a week left to save the airport. If the Government do not take the action that the people of South Yorkshire desperately need them to take, the people will conclude that this is final proof that the Tories’ levelling-up agenda is dead.
Katherine Fletcher
The message to the people of South Yorkshire is that they have an incredibly strong local champion in my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), who has been working tirelessly to make it happen from day one. The previous aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who is present, has already met the combined authority. The hon. Lady asks where the power lies; it lies with the Labour mayoral combined authority—the local council. [Interruption.] Well, let me address the Civil Contingencies Act: it was introduced by the Blair Government. When the Minister brought it to the House, it was envisioned that it would be used in only the most serious circumstances and
“would be used rarely, if ever”.—[Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1109.]
No Government have used it in 18 years. The Opposition—[Interruption.] The Labour party bringing in a law that was not serious; that would astonish me! What you are doing is trying to find a piece of politicking, instead of sitting down—[Interruption.] Sorry, it is my first go, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are—[Hon. Members: “You’re doing it again!”] The hon. Lady will forgive me, as it is my first go. [Interruption.] What we need is for the Peel Group to sit down with the commercial people, and that is what it promised to do when it sat down with the aviation Minister on 19 October.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I believe that this urgent question has been raised today to take away from the Adjournment debate on this subject tonight. The Opposition have actually shown an interest in this issue for the very first time. We have a combined authority that has been sadly lacking for over three years, and the people will learn the truth tonight about that. There are Opposition Members who have only shown any interest in the last fortnight. Certain Members on the Labour Benches, who have thousands of likes on their Facebook account, pin their books to their page rather than share the petition to save our airport, and they should sit there in disgrace. Does the Minister agree with me that, if the combined authority had done its job properly, we would not be in this position now?
Katherine Fletcher
I think my hon. Friend gives a wonderful preview of tonight’s Adjournment debate, and I look forward to it greatly.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I warned many times, while the attention was disproportionately on the Heathrows and the Gatwicks of the world, about how the perilous position of regional airports—their recovery from covid has been far slower—was being ignored. The closure of Doncaster Sheffield is a blow to vital regional connectivity. What is—and, indeed where is—the Government’s strategy for regional connectivity? Regional connectivity is not just about flights to London, which the current public service obligation legislation solely supports, and such flights are always the first to go when slots are needed for more lucrative routes. Direct regional links with European and global destinations have to be the priority.
I have also said many times that retail is a much higher proportion of regional airports’ revenues, but we have seen VAT-free shopping at the point of sale abolished. It was to be replaced by a less generous VAT reclaim scheme, but that has also been abandoned. I ask that this issue is looked at again. At the very least the Government must look at arrivals duty-free, which has cross-party support. Will they do so?
Finally, what plans does the Minister or her colleagues have to meet people from the regional airports, including Glasgow in my constituency, to find out and act on what they need, rather than what Greater London wants?
Katherine Fletcher
The hon. Gentleman may be able to guess from my accent that London is not always at the forefront of my mind when making decisions. As he well knows, Doncaster airport does not have any domestic internal flights, and airlines will set those up primarily from the perspective of commerciality. I agree with him about the importance of regional connectivity. On how communities can best work together to engage with what airports want and how regional connectivity work, I refer him to models mentioned previously in which other airports have a mixture of private and local engagement that really grounds operations within them. On the position on VAT, I am afraid that I will have to write to him rather than commit a snafu at the Dispatch Box.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
The Minister mentioned the Civil Contingencies Act earlier. She knows—indeed, the whole House knows—that it is a very specific piece of legislation that is intended only to be invoked in the face of a military assault, a terrorist attack or an unprecedented threat to the life of the nation. It is frivolous for the Opposition to call for it in this way, and they know that were it to be invoked by her or any other Minister, it would be subject to judicial review and struck down in the courts. Can she remind us of anywhere else that a mayoral combined authority has constructively acquired an airport, and might the person who did so be a Conservative who is more interested in delivering for people than in posturing on the Floor of this House?
Katherine Fletcher
It is important to commend hugely the work that has been happening at Doncaster airport with the National Police Air Service fixed wing, as well as 2Excel Aviation, the commercial company that in no small part is a preventive for oil spills and provides other important environmental protections. Not only is my right hon. Friend correct about the scale of intervention under the Civil Contingencies Act, but 2Excel has confirmation that it can meet its contracts and determinations in a different way with contingency plans, even further lowering that. I thank Members for their service, but this is not the nature of the emergency for which the Act was set up by a previous Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in 2004.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the first South Yorkshire mayor. For four years I dealt with the complexities of the airport, and I am trying to be constructive and help the Minister out. She said a moment ago that powers were invested in the mayor, and I would be grateful if she could say a little more to clarify what she thinks those powers are, as I think there is some confusion about that. More generally, I know she understands that there is huge concern about the potential closure of Doncaster Sheffield airport, and the impact that that would have not just on Doncaster but across our region. There is cross-party agreement about the importance of trying to keep the airport open, and also an acknowledgement that time is running very short. This is an important matter and I appeal to the Minister: we need to sit down and have a proper meeting that brings together MPs from both sides of the House, all of whom want the airport to stay open. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State and the Minister will not meet us. That would be the right thing to do and, even at this late stage, I hope that on a cross-party basis, including the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and Conservative Members—I could not have been clearer about that—we can sit down and work together, and see what can be done to keep the airport open.
Katherine Fletcher
In terms of what a mayor acting in the interests of his local community could do, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would permit me to ask Ben Houchen to set something out for him, rather than have me talk about it. As I pointed out, there has been a series of meetings with the previous aviation Minister and the current Minister. They have met Peel Group and local businesses affected, and they continue to do so. Any cross-party offer is welcome, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman could have a word with local leaders to engage them over a longer period of time than they have been engaged.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I declare my interest as the previous aviation Minister—that has just been referred to. Once the political bluster is over we are all on the same page, and we all have an undoubted understanding of the value of regional airports for areas such as Doncaster and Sheffield. Does the Minister agree that although the Government can bring people together and facilitate conversations, they are not in the business of owning and running airports? Local authorities sometimes are, however, and coming up with a credible commercial solution for how the airport can be bought and operated is something that must be locally led.
Katherine Fletcher
I thank my hon. Friend for the expertise that he brought to his previous portfolio. I would not dare to gainsay him, and yes, he is quite correct.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
This is an issue not just for South Yorkshire but for my subregion of Hull and the Humber. Will the Minister reflect on the fact that emergency services are based at that airport, including as we have heard the National Police Air Service? If that is to be disrupted in any way, that might well meet the threshold of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, so will she look at the issue again?
Katherine Fletcher
The right hon. Lady will be pleased to know that when the aviation Minister met Peel on 19 October she raised that very issue, and she has its assurance that it will work through to ensure that there is no potential disruption to the NPAS or 2Excel, should no commercial solution be available. It was also happy to commit absolutely to meeting anyone with commercial interests, and to engage with interested parties to find a commercial solution.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
As has been said, Doncaster Sheffield airport has strategic importance as a regional airport, not only for South Yorkshire but for the Humber area and Lincolnshire. South Humber is one of the fastest growing industrial areas in the country, and we must ensure that we protect Doncaster airport. Does the Minister agree that devolved administrations exist to ensure that they think strategically when working with business? They should ensure that they help those areas with huge amounts of development and growth, as Doncaster Sheffield airport has had, and that they work strategically, and not in the last few dying minutes when commercial decisions have already been made?
Katherine Fletcher
My hon. Friend is a lady of foresight and vision. I could not agree with her more.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Many of my constituents really value Doncaster Sheffield airport and want to keep it open. I hope that, putting aside party politics, the Minister will congratulate Oliver Coppard, the Mayor of South Yorkshire, on the efforts he has made on a constructive, cross-party basis to engage with Peel and other potential investors to try to keep the airport open.
The Minister referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) as being partisan. Does she not accept that it looks partisan indeed when Ministers are prepared to meet Government Members but not Opposition Members? Will she correct that and have a joint meeting?
Katherine Fletcher
I would love to meet hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I do not hold the aviation portfolio; perhaps the hon. Member slightly misunderstood me. I know that the aviation Minister has met a number of different representatives and I am happy to pass on the request. On working together, Peel has committed to meet anybody who can move forward with a medium-term, viable commercial strategy. I encourage both parties to do so.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The loss of Doncaster airport would be devastating across the South Yorkshire region, including in my constituency of Rother Valley, but this is not the first time that Peel Group has done this. In the Tees Valley, it did exactly the same thing, but the Mayor there stepped in to save the airport. Will the Minister outline what different powers the Mayor of Tees Valley has from those of the Mayor of South Yorkshire? If the Mayor of South Yorkshire cannot step up to the plate, he should step down.
Katherine Fletcher
I do not want to mislead my hon. Friend, who makes an extremely good point. I will write to him and get him the proper answer.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am bamboozled by Government Members’ comments. Our smaller, regional airports are in deep trouble, and Peel will not do anyone any favours at Doncaster or anywhere else. However, it did do a great deal with the Tees Valley Mayor. It got him to part with tens of millions of pounds for the loss-making Teesside International Airport a few years ago. Since then, the Mayor has had to prop it up with tens of millions of pounds more of public money, and the losses continue today as he fails to deliver on his changing forecasts for making it profitable. I invite the Minister to look at the numbers—it is losing millions every year. How will Ministers ensure that regional airports such as Doncaster and Teesside can have a sustainable future without the need for further subsidies?
Katherine Fletcher
I am genuinely confused about what the hon. Member wants the Department for Transport to do. Either he wants a solution for Doncaster airport to survive or he does not want that because it will require further investment from a local authority. What Government Members know much better than Opposition Members is how to generate economic growth. Policies such as the recently announced investment zones that are currently under examination, which could include Teesside airport, are the type of thing that attract businesses and drive investment in local communities.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
As the Conservative candidate for Don Valley in 2017, I know how important the airport is to the people of the constituency. I invite the Minister to join me in praising my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for, two years later, doing rather better than I did, and for fighting an incredibly tenacious campaign on behalf of his constituents. He has been on the case for more than 100 days, contrary to some of the Johnny-come-latelys on the Opposition Benches and, contrary to what the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, he has been shut out by the Mayor of South Yorkshire, Oliver Coppard. Will the Minister praise my hon. Friend for his tireless efforts and ensure that she listens to tonight’s Adjournment debate in which he will set out everything that he has been doing?
Katherine Fletcher
Not only will I be listening to the Adjournment debate, but I have the joy and honour of responding to it. I should imagine that once we have concluded today’s urgent question and tonight’s Adjournment debate, the day 105 update from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) will be an absolute bumper edition.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Minister and I share one thing in common: our birthplace is the city of Manchester. Peel has a considerable presence in Greater Manchester and Merseyside, and in Cheshire where my seat is. What leverage have the Minister and the Secretary of State used to ensure that Peel is effectively around the table to help our good colleagues in the likes of Doncaster? It really would make sense for this place to be at its best and to work together right across the piece with all parliamentarians and stop the partisanship.
Katherine Fletcher
It is always good to have two Wythenshawe people having a bit of a chat across the Dispatch Box. I agree that we are better in this place when we work together and are not partisan. On the exact details of the meetings and engagements with Peel, I will probably have to write to the hon. Gentleman because that is within the aviation Minister’s responsibilities. I note, however, that Peel services his constituents in Cheshire within the Liverpool Airport framework. There is a positive sign for the future if that can be replicated elsewhere.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is disappointing that the Minister seems to have no jurisdiction over the matter concerned for the urgent question. In light of the fact that this is a really urgent issue, may I also say that she needs to get all stakeholders around one table now to resolve it? It will have a significant impact on the local economy and across Yorkshire, including in York. Most importantly, the Government need a regional airport strategy to address the issues we are seeing across the country.
Katherine Fletcher
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I encourage her to go back to the South Yorkshire Mayor. There is, I think, an opportunity for a locally led review, with the convening power of the South Yorkshire Mayor. I am sure that colleagues across the piece would be happy to engage with that.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Some of the contributions have been disappointingly and shockingly partisan. As I think the Minister recognises, the South Yorkshire Mayor, with Doncaster Council and others on both sides of the House, is doing everything possible to keep alive the hope of an airport in the region, pressing for an alternative operator with some success. However, there is concern about Peel winding down key services such as air traffic control or the fire service, or removing specialist infrastructure like navigational beacons, making the sort of commercial solution that the Minister talks about far less viable. Will she contact the aviation Minister—it is a shame that neither the Secretary of State nor the aviation Minister can be here—to urge Peel not to run down the airport in the way it seems to be doing? Peel has form in switching use of airport sites to more profitable activities, having benefited from public funds that have enhanced their value.
Katherine Fletcher
I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on the details of where the airport is in terms of any wind-down. I can reassure him that the aviation Minister—unfortunately, she cannot speak in this place because she serves in the other place; that is why she is not here today—has assured me that she has spoken to Peel and that it is open to ensuring every service is maintained during the transition period. However, I do not have the details to hand, so I will have to write to him.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The tens of thousands of people who signed the petition and the hundreds of people whose jobs are hanging by a thread will be watching these proceedings with their heads in their hands. A political blame game is emanating, rather than any sense that we have a Government ministerial team attempting to actually save the airport. It is not the Minister’s fault that she does not hold this portfolio, but it is the Transport Secretary’s fault that they are not here. They should be able to answer questions on this. I cannot imagine another city the size of Sheffield in all of western Europe that does not have an airport. Will the Minister pass on to the Transport Secretary the fury of the people of South Yorkshire and the north midlands that this has been so loosely dealt with, and start getting hold of this issue? It is impossible to negotiate with a company that has no interest in selling and wants to hold on to it for alternative purposes.
Katherine Fletcher
I hear the passion with which the hon. Member speaks for people, and I understand why people want regional airports. I gently point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) has been pushing this issue for weeks and weeks, so the implication that nothing has happened or that people have only just been heard is not true or fair. The Secretary of State has met Peel twice. Aviation Ministers past and present have been engaging, but ultimately, we are talking about a commercial business in this instance and the Government do not own the airport. We cannot compel commercial businesses, but we can encourage, suggest and get people around the table, and we will continue to do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers. She mentioned the important strategic position of Doncaster airport—as did all Members on both sides of the Chamber—and she mentioned the changing scene for small airports. Connectivity has also been mentioned, and that is very important. In Northern Ireland, we have had to fight for our airline staff. I have written to the Minister responsible for air travel about this issue: in the past few weeks, the removal of bodies such as Aer Lingus from UK operations from Belfast City airport to Heathrow means job losses and has an impact on connectivity. What steps can Ministers take—I am ever mindful that the Minister is not directly responsible for this, but I would appreciate her passing it on—to secure regional connectivity in all parts and regions of the United Kingdom?
Katherine Fletcher
Belfast City airport is, I believe, the George Best international airport, and as a committed Manchester United fan, it would be an honour to fly into it. I am happy to write to the hon. Member with those answers when that is possible.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
To be honest, I am disappointed with some of the comments that have been made across the House. It is on us all to work together to find a solution to this situation. Investors have cited Government inaction as a core reason why they might not be confident in investing. What do the Government think about that? Do they agree that Government action or inaction will have consequences for whether the airport will stay open?
Katherine Fletcher
Government action, the action of local authorities and the action of local leaders are important. I would be happy to hear of any specific actions that the hon. Lady would like us to take to help two commercial businesses in a negotiation. If she wants to pass that to me, I will make sure that the aviation Minister is aware of it.
Points of Order
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) said that the Mayor of South Yorkshire had shut the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) out of negotiations. For the record, I understand that the hon. Member for Don Valley has not called the Mayor once and that the negotiation meetings are non-political. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme appears not to be in his place, but he may well have misled the House inadvertently, so will he correct the record?
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have met Oliver Coppard on a weekly basis but have not been part of any working groups. Throughout the past three months, I have continually asked to become part of these working groups but have been shut out of them. I have been part of other groups with other MPs who have been there, and have been told that meetings have been held without me. That was questioned right at the beginning.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) was referring to a remark made by another Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), and I am sure that that will be fed back in case any correction needs to be made. We have heard the view of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) as well. It is quite important that we do not just continue the debate at this point, because we need to move on to the statement from the Home Secretary.
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Final Report
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the Home Secretary to make this statement, I remind hon. Members that they should not refer to any specific cases currently before the courts and that they should exercise caution with respect to any specific cases that might subsequently come before the courts, in order not to prejudice those proceedings.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Grant Shapps)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. Last Thursday, the inquiry’s report was published. It concludes seven years of investigation into institutional failure across England and Wales to protect and safeguard children from child sexual abuse.
I want to thank the chair of the inquiry, Professor Alexis Jay, and her whole team for their fearless dedication and commitment in uncovering generations of horrendous societal, professional and institutional failings. I have written to Professor Jay and offered to meet her in the coming weeks to discuss her findings.
Above all, I want to extend my profound gratitude to the thousands of victims and survivors who have come forward to share their testimonies and experiences with the inquiry. That took immense courage. We will honour that courage by keeping their voices front and centre in everything we do and in overseeing a radical improvement in how this crime is dealt with and prevented. The whole House will be deeply moved by the reasons that victims and survivors gave for wanting to share their stories. They wanted their experiences to be acknowledged, to be listened to and to be taken seriously; they wanted to protect other children from suffering as they have suffered. Yet they also wanted not to be defined by this experience and to find, as one survivor put it, “life after abuse”. Madam Deputy Speaker, they are heroic.
Nothing—nothing—is more wicked than hurting a child, and there is no worse dereliction of duty than failing to protect a child. The report reveals horrific abuse of children. It makes for devastating and distressing reading. It finds that organisations have put their reputations ahead of protecting vulnerable children—either turning a blind eye or actively covering up abuse. That is inexcusable.
I am a father of three children and this report has made for very difficult reading. I cannot imagine the pain that victims have been through. Madam Deputy Speaker, I say this on behalf of the Government and all Governments who came before: to all the victims who have suffered this horrendous abuse, I am truly sorry.
The inquiry heard from more than 7,300 victims and survivors. It investigated abuse over not only the last seven years but several decades. The report makes a wide range of recommendations, including greater accountability, increased reporting, better redress for victims, an increased focus on bringing the perpetrators of these abhorrent acts to justice, and a stronger voice from Government on this issue. The Government will take all these recommendations, and the insights provided by brave survivors, seriously.
Getting this right will mean everyone redoubling their efforts and working more closely together—all of Government, the police, the health and care system, local authorities, schools, and all other interested parties. I will convene meetings with Ministers across Whitehall to drive that change. Our new child protection ministerial group, set up following the care review, will champion children’s safety at every level and provide the leadership to oversee reforms across children’s social and care services. Several Government Departments have been core participants in the inquiry, and we have been working to respond in real time to recommendations already made during the course of the inquiry.
The actions that we have taken include the Government’s tackling child sexual abuse strategy, published in January last year; driving initiatives to increase reporting of this too often hidden crime, including awareness raising campaigns, and to improve the confidence and capabilities of frontline professionals to identify and respond to child sexual abuse; ensuring that education and safeguarding professionals are better equipped and supported in identifying harmful sexual behaviours and protecting children from peer-on-peer abuse and harm; targeting offenders by investing in the National Crime Agency, GCHQ and new technology, and by giving the police stronger powers; and providing better support to victims—committing to a new Victims Bill and increased funding for specialised support services.
The conclusion of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse marks the end of a vital period of reflection and learning, but it also marks the start of the next chapter in how society confronts and defeats this evil. Nothing must be allowed to get in the way, be it inertia, misplaced cultural sensitivities, indifference, self-interest or cowardice from those whose job it is to protect children. In fact, it is the job of every adult to do all they can to protect children. Anything less is a profound moral failing, not to mention a professional and institutional failing. Walking by on the other side is never acceptable. Would-be abusers need to know that they will be caught and punished. Victims need to know that it is never their fault and that they will be heard and protected.
I have laid a copy of the inquiry’s report before Parliament. It is only right that the Government will now take time to carefully consider its findings and recommendations in full. We will respond comprehensively and in line with the inquiry’s deadline, but let me make this promise now: I will use all available levers to protect our children and right the wrongs exposed by the inquiry’s findings, I will do all in my power to improve how law enforcement and the criminal justice system respond to child sexual abuse, and I will work with ministerial colleagues and across party lines to hold organisations to account, bring perpetrators to justice and support victims and survivors with compassion and total care.
Where we can act more quickly, we will. That is why we have already announced that through the support for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse fund, we are allocating £4.5 million over three years to seven organisations to support victims and survivors. The fund is only the start in addressing the inquiry’s recommendations, but it is another step towards ensuring that we provide vital support for children and young people who have experienced sexual abuse, for adult survivors and for parents and carers of victims. It is just one part of the more than £60 million a year that the Home Office is investing in tackling this crime.
Child sexual abuse is a terrible but preventable crime—and we must prevent it. We will do so with the inquiry’s recommendations in front of us and with the words of heroic survivors ringing in our ears. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Home Secretary.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome the new Home Secretary to his post and thank him for the advance copy of his statement. I join him in paying tribute to the victims and survivors who pressed for the inquiry and who have shown great bravery and strength in telling their stories and speaking out to seek justice, to seek truth and to seek protection for others. I thank the inquiry team for their work.
This is a deeply serious report about one of the worst imaginable crimes, the sexual abuse and exploitation of children—the violence, pain and terror that they have described; the degradation, the violation and the consequences that they have felt throughout their lives; and the deep failure of the institutions and people in power who were supposed to protect them. It was a failure to listen, a failure to believe and a failure to act on the part of institutions that, through generations, were found to have protected their own reputation rather than protecting children and to have put deference to authority above the basic duty of care to children, whom they badly let down. I and my party join the Home Secretary and the Government in their deep apology towards those who were so badly let down by state institutions that should have kept them safe. We are truly sorry.
The inquiry recommends major changes in child protection and in support for victims. The Home Secretary has rightly committed himself to overseeing a radical improvement in the way in which this crime is dealt with and prevented, and that is welcome, but I have stood at this Dispatch Box and heard similar promises before. The Home Secretary’s response today is not strong enough and does not go far enough, because this is not just a historic inquiry; the report makes clear that child sexual abuse is endemic and increasing. There are children at risk today, and there are basic child protection issues that are getting worse and require action now, in advance of the Government’s full response to the inquiry.
First, the report refers to
“the explosion in online-facilitated child sexual abuse”,
including grooming and the online streaming of the rape of babies and children. The Home Secretary did not really mention online harms, and, as he will know, the Online Safety Bill has been repeatedly delayed. Can he confirm that it will definitely complete its remaining stages next week and that its progress to the House of Lords will be accelerated, because this is urgent? Can he also confirm that the National Crime Agency will not have to make the 20% staff cuts that his predecessors asked it to draw up?
Secondly, the report says that
“significant reductions in funding of public services”
after 2010, when referrals were rising, are one the key factors that have had
“a deleterious impact on responses to child sexual abuse.”
Does the Home Secretary accept that that damage was done, and is he acting now to ensure that child protection services do not have to pay the price of his party’s mini-Budget when the public spending announcements are made next week?
Thirdly, everyone has been expecting the inquiry to recommend a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse, and Labour has been calling for that since 2014. May I urge the Home Secretary to announce that he will support it straight away, and send a strong signal to those across the sector? Fourthly, he referred to the criminal justice system. As he will know, the charge rate for child sexual abuse has dropped from 32% in 2015 to 12% last year. Will he take urgent action to prosecute dangerous criminals, because that has been getting worse?
Fifthly, the Home Secretary’s own Department has responsibility for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, but just last week the independent inspectorate found that they were being placed in unsuitable hotels whose staff had not even been subject to Disclosure and Barring Service checks. According to reports over the weekend, hundreds of asylum-seeking children have disappeared. When his own Department is failing in the most basic child protection and safeguarding, the Home Secretary will understand that his words today are not enough. What action has he taken since he saw those reports over the weekend?
I know the Home Secretary will say that he is new in his post, but he will understand that that is part of the concern. This report is too important to get lost in all the political changes that have been taking place and all the confusion within Government. I therefore ask the Home Secretary to answer my five urgent questions now, and to recognise that we owe it to the thousands of victims and survivors who have spoken out, but also to the millions of children in the current generation who are still at risk of abuse, to ensure that this inquiry leaves a lasting legacy to protect our children.
Grant Shapps
I thank the right hon. Lady for her response to my statement. I repeat the message in the statement that I want to work across parties to do all we can to protect victims and, indeed, drive down this appalling crime.
The right hon. Lady raised a number of specific points, and I will, if I may, respond to her in writing, because I will then be able to give a more detailed response. However, one or two things did catch my eye as she was speaking. In particular, it is worth saying to Members who have not had a chance to read the report that 2 million pages of evidence were presented, and that there have been 107 recommendations and Thursday’s report contains a further 20. We have already started to implement many of those recommendations. I listed some in my statement so I will not backtrack, but, as I have said, I intend to respond to all this in full and within the inquiry’s own deadline, and as I have also said, I will try to expedite as many responses as I can. In particular, the right hon. Lady called for mandatory reporting; I noted that comment, and I will look at all those individual areas.
On prosecutions, the picture is a bit more complicated than has been presented in the right hon. Lady’s response. For example, the number of convictions for indecent image offences has increased by 39% in the past year alone. However, I accept that overall there is still a huge task to be done in the Online Safety Bill, which contains some very important clauses. I have not yet caught up with the Bill managers, but I know that it is progressing quickly and I want to see that happen. The figures are staggering, with 103,000 child sex offences recorded by the police in the last year alone. Much of this has gone online, and the right hon. Lady is right to pinpoint the measures in the Online Safety Bill as being extremely important.
As the right hon. Lady knows, I take a great deal of interest in the issue of asylum, including refugees—we have some living in our house, in fact—and I want to ensure that we do everything we can. I know that the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), has made inquiries in the past few days on the priorities with regard to asylum-seeking children. With that, it will probably be most helpful to the right hon. Lady and to the House if I write to her in detail on all her points, and I will be happy to put that letter in the Library of the House.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
When I set up this inquiry, I said that I thought the public would be shocked at the extent of child sexual abuse that was taking place in our country. I would like to thank Professor Alexis Jay, the other members of the inquiry panel and all of their team for their hard work in producing this report. I particularly want to echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) in thanking all those who came forward to give evidence, which will not have been easy for them.
This report has shone a light on the horrific violence against children that has been taking place in the past and that also, sadly, takes place today. The Government now have an opportunity, on the back of this inquiry report, to make changes that will make a real difference, so I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that all parts of Government take this report and treat it with utter seriousness, particularly the recommendation on mandatory reporting.
Grant Shapps
I thank my right hon. Friend for all that she did in setting up the inquiry. This has involved seven years, 725 witnesses, 20 reports across 15 investigations, 24 research reports and, as I mentioned, the processing of 2 million pages of evidence. It is extremely important that we take all this information and ensure that we act on it, and I give an undertaking from the Dispatch Box today to honour the spirit in which she set up the inquiry in the first place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Stuart C. McDonald.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I, too, welcome the Home Secretary to his place and, like him, I want to thank the members of the inquiry and their staff for their incredibly thorough and painstaking work over many years. Like everybody else, I think the most important thing is to pay tribute to all the survivors who participated courageously in recounting their own horrific experiences. They did so seeking acknowledgement and accountability, but also in the hope that children in future would be protected from the same dreadful ordeal. As the Home Secretary says, it is now incumbent on all of us to work constructively to make those aspirations a reality.
Obviously there is a lot to consider, and while it is good to be able to question the Home Secretary on the report today, I think many of us would appreciate the opportunity for a full debate in this Chamber in due course, or at least regular updates on the progress being made on implementing the report’s recommendations. Most of the recommendations are focused on England and Wales, but as the report notes, this is a global crisis and a similar inquiry is ongoing in Scotland.
I want to highlight the growing concerns outlined in the report about how child sexual exploitation is being facilitated by modern slavery and trafficking. There has been a lot of concerning chatter in recent weeks from the Home Office about the future of modern slavery laws. Given that sexual exploitation is the second most common reason for children being referred into the national referral mechanism, will the Home Secretary acknowledge the importance of modern slavery laws in protecting children from abuse and commit to making those laws work better, rather than tearing them up completely?
I echo what the shadow Home Secretary said about the recent worrying reports of asylum-seeking children going missing from hotels on the Home Secretary’s watch. We are now talking three figures, so will the Home Secretary say a little more about what is being done to look into why that is happening and how it can be stopped? What progress has been made on rolling out the use of independent child trafficking guardians? Finally, given the time constraints and the fact that we understand the Online Safety Bill will return to the House next week, what discussions is he having with colleagues about the implications of this report for that Bill, including in relation to age verification?
Grant Shapps
I know work is being done. I think there was a report five years ago and there are separate, ongoing reports in Scotland, with many cross-cutting themes. The hon. Gentleman rightly asks about modern slavery laws, many of which we have my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) to thank for. I reassure him that any changes made for the specific purpose of ensuring that potential loopholes are closed will not have an impact on the main purpose, just as he describes.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding us that the Online Safety Bill will return very shortly. I am ensuring that its findings, many of which were in the interim report, will be covered in the Online Safety Bill. I will return to him in writing on his comments about asylum seekers in hotels.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. He will know that his role comes with huge responsibilities, especially for protecting children, which is why I welcome his statement and the comments of the shadow Home Secretary. I welcome this excellent final report, of course, and I thank Professor Alexis Jay, the victims and survivors, and Professor Jay’s entire team for producing it.
The Disclosure and Barring Service is referenced some 84 times in the report. In 2020, when I led a commission into child sexual abuse and exploitation, we discovered a number of issues relating to the DBS, particularly the ability of convicted child sexual abusers to avoid detection by simply changing their name. This loophole has still not been closed by the Government, so I urge my right hon. Friend to work with his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to close it as quickly as possible.
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend has occupied my post and is very knowledgeable about this subject. There are concerns about the DBS, and I asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), to look into this urgently. That work is already under way, so I will report back to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Dame Diana Johnson.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I, too, pay tribute to all the victims and survivors who gave testimony to the inquiry, and to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for establishing it in the first place. We can all agree that victims and survivors have waited far too long for this inquiry and for robust action to be taken against child sexual abuse. We must not waste any more time. Will the Home Secretary commit to bringing forward, in this Session, any legislative changes that are needed, particularly on mandatory reporting?
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Lady has expertise in this area, so I thank her for her point. As I said, I want to act as quickly as possible. She will appreciate that this report was seven years and £184 million in the making, so there is an awful lot of information for us to look at and consider, and we will come back to the House with our response. I would rather go through that process systematically, to ensure we get it right, than make a promise from the Dispatch Box that I do not know I will be able to fulfil. I reassure her and all Members that I will be doing it with the utmost speed and determination.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place and commend him for his response to this report, as well as thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for establishing the inquiry in the first place.
The victims’ stories make horrific reading. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be aware that, when it comes to the detection and tackling of child sexual abuse and exploitation, a critical role is played by children’s social workers, the overwhelming majority of whom do outstanding work in the most difficult circumstances, but we can do more to support them. Will he work with the Secretary of State for Education to look once more at Martin Narey’s report on how we can improve social workers’ education, and to see whether more resource can be devoted to ensuring that the work of Frontline, the organisation that brings the brightest and the best from higher education into social work, can be expanded?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The report is difficult reading, as we see when we start to read some of the testimony, and he is absolutely right on that. I also agree with him on the need to pay tribute to the vast majority of frontline workers and social workers who do an extraordinary job. He is probably familiar with the independent Centre of expertise on child sexual abuse, which was funded by the Home Office and set up in 2016, and which has been helping to provide and strengthen the ability of professionals to identify sexual abuse. To answer his question directly, I will undertake to work with the Secretary of State for Education and pull together Secretaries of State and Ministers from across the Government to make sure that we work on this issue and stamp out the sexual abuse of youngsters.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Maidenhead on having the courage and determination to establish this inquiry, at a time when, I recall, it was not popular everywhere. When I worked in this field in the late 1980s, one thing that struck me was that we tended to put more emphasis on finding the evidence to prosecute the perpetrator than we did on the damage experienced by the victim; I appreciate that this is sometimes a difficult balance to strike. In that context, may I ask the Home Secretary to think about the problems that victims face today as they try to negotiate the myriad services when seeking help? There is lot of faith now in the child house model, which is, in essence, an all-in-one service that tries to make it easier for victims. Will he do what he can to make sure that that model is properly resourced, so that we are not treating the needs of the victim as being in second place to the prosecution of the perpetrator?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. One problem with tackling child sexual abuse is that it can happen in so many different settings and environments that it is difficult to have one central location always to deal with it. But what we can do is provide the services, expertise and some of the different initiatives I referred to in my comments to help bring that support. I absolutely agree with him and I am determined to do that, on behalf of all the children who have been abused and to prevent further abuse in future.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for establishing the inquiry, and to Professor Jay for her report. I know something about how difficult and painstaking the evidence-gathering exercise was, because I was a barrister on the inquiry for a year in 2017. From Dolphin Square to the Catholic Church, from young offenders institutes to residential schools, the findings of the inquiry reveal the extent of prolonged child abuse, often in places where children were meant to be kept safe. Repeatedly it was found that if they complained about it, they were accused of lying or were even blamed for it happening in the first place.
There are multiple lessons from the report, but I would like to ask my right hon. Friend about the specific findings in relation to sexual predators—paedophiles—who travel overseas to abuse children. The report finds that civil orders restricting foreign travel are often underused and ineffective, because they only prohibit travel to a named country, which means that the perpetrator can circumvent that restriction by taking a different route. Will he say what the Home Office is doing to tighten up the restrictions in that area specifically?
Grant Shapps
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work in 2017—these cannot have been easy pieces of legal work to do. She is right to say that it is never the fault of the victims and we need to make sure that the response from officialdom is never to disbelieve and never to blame the victim either. She raises an important point about the narrow scope of those civil orders. We will certainly be undertaking to look at those and how they could operate much more efficiently.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
On behalf of the Liberal Democrat party I echo colleagues on both sides of the House in praising the bravery of the victims. We recognise the lasting physical, emotional and psychological damage done to them, and our thoughts are with them. The Liberal Democrats endorse all the inquiry’s recommendations and call for them to be implemented urgently, but will the Minister commit to act specifically on the long-term Liberal Democrat call, which is a recommendation in the report as well, to sponsor a meaningful public campaign to make children more confident about reporting incidents?
Grant Shapps
One thing that has happened since the Savile case and the publicity that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead brought to this issue by calling the inquiry in the first place is that a lot more people are coming forward, and that is a good thing. Specific pieces of work, including some that I have referenced, are already under way to make sure that children know that those routes to reporting are there, but I am sure there is still more to be done, and I will take a close look at what more can be achieved.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I declare an interest as the chairman of a safeguarding board. As one of the six MPs who harangued the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), to set up the inquiry, I absolutely commend the huge amount of work that Alexis Jay and her team have undertaken and the bravery of the survivors who came forward with their testimonies.
I completely agree with all the comments the Home Secretary has just made. The trouble is that they were all included in the Government’s first child sexual exploitation strategy, which I published back in 2011. What has changed? Despite the continued call for a change in culture, the problem is getting worse, with criminals using technology to find even more ghastly ways of abusing children.
On two of the recommendations, what does the Secretary of State think the role of a child protection authority would be, and how would it interact with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre? Does he think it was a good idea to roll CEOP into the National Crime Agency, rather than keep its independence?
The Secretary of State mentioned the need to have a cross-governmental response, so does he agree with the recommendation to create something that many of us have wanted for many years—a Cabinet-level Minister for children, looking after that 20% of the population and particularly the most vulnerable children, who are what this report is all about?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend may not remember this, but we first met when he was shadow Children’s Minister, and I and the whole House know of his extraordinary work campaigning on these issues over many years. I have heard what he has to say, and I hope he will forgive me—three or four days into the job—for not having all the answers for him, but I will certainly undertake to write to him with them. I would just say that, although he is right that some of these issues were emerging in 2011, vastly more information and data are now coming forward, particularly as a result of the publicity that the inquiry has brought to this issue.
My hon. Friend asked me some very specific questions about CEOP and about whether there should be a Minister, or even a Cabinet Minister, for children. That is one of the recommendations in the report, and I will respond to it in the House within the report’s timelines or even sooner. We all, in a sense, have to be Ministers for children; we should all care about this issue as we look after children in different ways, and the whole of society has that responsibility as well. However, I will certainly come back to my hon. Friend on his inquiries.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Home Secretary to his post. For anyone who has picked up this report, the findings are very difficult. You do not need to be a parent to be disturbed by some of the testimony. One issue that I have spoken a lot about in the House is young women who are sexually abused and assaulted by criminals as a result of child criminal exploitation. Some of them face the same horrific treatment as some of the victims we are talking about. They are victims and we should believe them, but they are never believed, because they are involved in crime. The Home Secretary referenced the victims Bill, and when it finally comes forward I urge him to look at the issue of child criminal exploitation and of young boys and girls being sexually assaulted by gang members who know they will get away with it because those young people are viewed as criminals.
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady is right, and this plays into the wider issues of gang traffickers as well, because they know that they can be in an exploitative situation and do exploit, in particular, girls but also all children. She refers to the victims Bill, which was published in May in draft format. The whole point of that is for it to have pre-legislative scrutiny. I know that many organisations and many colleagues across the House have been involved in that, which will mean, I think, that we come forward with legislation that is in a better place to tackle many of the issues that she and others in this House have raised.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the commitments that he has made to looking at the recommendations of the review. The problem is that child sexual exploitation and abuse are getting worse in this country. In 2020, the Internet Watch Foundation found 153,000 images of child sexual abuse online and reported a 77% increase in self-generated images of sexual abuse. I welcome his commitment to the Online Safety Bill, but the truth is that it is the proliferation of online pornography, which is increasingly extreme in nature, that is driving up demand for child sexual exploitation. In fact, the word “teen” is one of the most commonly searched terms on PornHub. When will the Government acknowledge that online pornography is an enormous public health issue, child protection issue and criminal justice issue that is driving much of the child sexual exploitation that we see today?
Grant Shapps
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. She mentioned some figures. The ones that really stuck out for me were that, in 2021 alone, global technology companies reported more than 29 million suspected instances of child sexual abuse material on their platforms. To be clear, that is just social media platforms; that is not the whole of the internet. There are 85 million files, including images of videos of child sexual abuse. She is absolutely right about the scale of the problem. As she will know, the Online Safety Bill contains clauses to deal with some of this. I think she is referencing two parts of this: the strictly illegal aspects—the Home Office clauses; and the wider issues that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is taking forward in the Bill. That Bill is active and in front of the House, and she is right to highlight the necessity of its completing its passage.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This is the most disturbing of reports—probably one of the most disturbing things that any Member could read. We know that 80,000 children are in care; that is due to increase by 25% over the next decade without intervention. We know, too, that children in the care sector are at greater risk of child sexual exploitation. How will the Secretary of State be working with the independent review on children’s services in the care setting? Moreover, will he work with the Education Secretary to bring an immediate end to the use of unregulated care settings?
Grant Shapps
I can tell the hon. Lady that we are setting up a cross-Government group to specifically work on the issues that she has raised, and that will include my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome the statement from the new Home Secretary and also welcome him to his place. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) on starting this process in the first place. Child sexual abuse is not new; it has been going on since time immemorial. Young children are abused in families, in institutions by gangs, and by paedophiles who groom them online and then abuse them. Those of us who have had a long political career have witnessed some of the inquiries that have gone on, and we know the sad reality is that the people who do such things are thoroughly evil and need to be brought to justice. Although it is good news that more people are coming forward to report historical child sexual abuse, we need to ensure that those currently experiencing it are enabled to report what is going on and are believed, and that action is taken. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to do that as a matter of utmost priority?
Grant Shapps
Absolutely, I will undertake to do that as a matter of priority. The National Crime Agency, GCHQ and a whole network of undercover officers and others work constantly on tackling organised exploitative crime through a programme. One thing that has struck me in my first few days in this office is the number of warrants that I have to sign off dealing with gangs who are exploiting children. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the scale of the issue, and our determination to stamp it out and work with our partners in enforcement agencies knows no bounds.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
As one of the Members representing a part of the London Borough of Lambeth, with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) sitting next to me, I pay tribute to all the victims and survivors of abuse suffered by children and young people in the care of Lambeth Council. It is a shameful period in the history of our borough. I also pay tribute to those whose lives were cut short as a result of the harm and trauma they suffered, and who are not here to see and read the vindication of their experiences as set out in the final ICSA report. It is a responsibility of us all to ensure that such shame can never again come to our communities, but we delude ourselves if we tell each other that children are safe everywhere in the UK today. We face a situation where 16 and 17-year-olds are routinely placed in unregulated accommodation, putting them at risk of abuse and exploitation; 222 vulnerable asylum-seeking children have gone missing from Home Office-procured accommodation and half of all local authority children’s services departments are currently rated inadequate or requiring improvement, so they cannot possibly be doing the best job of protecting the children in their care. What urgent work will the Home Secretary be doing on a cross-departmental basis to ensure that horrors such as those exposed by this report can never happen again?
Grant Shapps
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for calling out what has happened in Lambeth and elsewhere; I have nothing to add to her words where that is concerned. A number of hon. Members have raised issues concerning unaccompanied children, particularly those seeking asylum. The accommodation care means that they should be moved within 15 days, but I think that needs to be done quicker, if at all possible. We have also set up a programme of paying local authorities, increasing placement offers to councils by £6,000 to accommodate every child. She asks about cross-Government work—I should possibly add cross-party work—and that is under way, led by my the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies). I will be taking a personal interest in the matter all the way through and convening meetings with other Secretaries of State to tackle the problem from every possible angle.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
In the 20 years that I led on child protection work in local government, we saw repeated attempts to restructure the systems in place for child protection. However, a common thread that seemed to run through every example of failure was a lack of really good information-sharing. Even today, while councils are the lead agencies on child protection, they are reliant on other organisations—the police, the NHS, especially schools and sometimes, in the case of asylum-seeking children, Border Force—to bring evidence to their attention so that early intervention can take place. Will my right hon. Friend give some consideration to making some of those safeguarding partners statutory partners in the safeguarding process, so that they can be held accountable for their actions in the same way that local authorities, police and the national health service are?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This morning, I was at Hertfordshire Constabulary, looking at the impressive database it has for when people are booked into custody cells. I was surprised to learn on questioning, however, that if somebody had been brought in because they were suspected of abusing somebody, including a child, that data is not necessarily or automatically shared by all 43 forces across the country. That is just within the police, let alone the crossover he mentions with other statutory bodies, local authorities, care organisations and others. The big thing that strikes me in my first few days in this job is that working together with those statutory partners to bring the information together, so that it can be flagged up as and where necessary, must be an important part of the solution. We live in the 21st century and that should be possible to do. I take his comments on board and promise that I will be spending a considerable amount of time looking at how we can improve the situation.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Home Secretary to his place, but I share the frustrations of colleagues across the House. The Online Safety Bill has been delayed yet again due to the chaos at the heart of this Government—five years we have been waiting for that legislation. The victims Bill, which has been promised since 2015 and has appeared in four Queen’s Speeches, still has not been brought forward. The child abuse strategy was published 18 months ago, as the Home Secretary said, but which of its commitments have been implemented? The shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), stated that warm words are no longer enough; we need action, so what direct action will the Home Secretary take to stop the paralysis of government?
Grant Shapps
I am not sure that question was put quite in the spirit of the cross-party way that we are trying to approach this issue. I set out in quite some detail a number of things that have already happened. The hon. Lady refers to the Government’s tackling child sexual abuse strategy, which was published last January. A number of the actions have already been undertaken, including initiatives on awareness-raising campaigns, which has already been mentioned; the capability of frontline professionals; identifying and responding to sexual abuse; better education for professionals; protecting people from peer-on-peer abuse and harm; the National Crime Agency, which I have already met and discussed the issue with, and GCHQ using new technologies; and strengthening police power—not, I should say, something that the Labour party has always voted for. We are already legislating with the Online Safety Bill, and the victims Bill is already out in draft. I have to say that we are moving pretty fast considering that the full report only came out on Thursday.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Child sexual abuse has plagued Rotherham for decades. The Alexis Jay report found that over 1,500 girls in my constituency and across Rotherham were raped in a period of 10 to 15 years. One of the reasons why so many children were victims of these paedophiles and evil people was that the authorities turned a blind eye and did not report what they saw, so I welcome the IICSA report’s recommendation of mandatary reporting of crimes. Will the Home Secretary tell us when that law will be introduced and what sorts of punishments will be given out to those who enable paedophiles by ignoring victims?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think I am right in saying that it was Professor Jay who carried out the work on the report on Rotherham. She was very clear that things such as cultural sensitivities and political sensitivities were all too often barriers to dealing properly with systemic sexual abuse. My hon. Friend asks specifically about things such as mandatory reporting. As I mentioned, I will come back to that within the time guideline in the report, or earlier if I can.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place and wish him well. I commend the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for her initiative, and I thank all those who made contributions and statements to the independent inquiry. One in six girls and one in 20 boys suffers sexual abuse before they reach the age of 16. I would have assumed that that statistic was for a third-world country, but unfortunately it is not; I was shocked to discover that it describes the country we live in—this nation. It makes my heart ache in my chest to think of the robbery of innocence, which we have all referred to. How do we start to address that horrific fact? What steps will the Secretary of State take to address it in every corner of the United Kingdom, along with all the devolved Administrations?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the scale of the problem, which may surprise people who have not been involved in the subject before when they read the report. Some 7.5% of adults in England and Wales are estimated to have been sexually abused before they were 16—approximately 5% of boys and 15% of girls. That equates to probably over 3 million people in this country. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I do not think that there is one single thing that can be done to solve that. As I mentioned, the problem of sexual abuse happens in so many different settings, so we have to act simultaneously on all fronts. This seven-year report—brilliantly commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, as many colleagues have mentioned—is just the start. We now need to make sure that we enact all the recommendations.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The report says that the internet is magnifying child sexual abuse and grooming, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) said, has massively increased since the inquiry began under my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). Can my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary assure me that the Online Safety Bill is strong and unequivocal, and will be put into law as soon as possible? It does seem to be taking an inordinate amount of time for it to go through both Houses.
Grant Shapps
I will certainly be working closely with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to make sure that happens. My hon. Friend is right about the scale of it, but we should not lose sight of the work that our agencies are doing—for example, the National Crime Agency estimates that it makes 800 arrests or voluntary attendances and carries out 1,000 safeguards each month because of industry reporting. I appreciate that that is not enough—we need to ensure that every case is being reported—but the agencies are working and will have increased the amount of work being done over the period that the report has been under way. She is absolutely right about the need to speed up the Bill.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I, too, thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for getting the inquiry under way. Its recommendations will be rightly considered by the Government in the coming months, but we must not forget the victims and their families, who are at the report’s heart. Not long ago, the previous Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), came to Keighley to meet victims and survivors, because unfortunately, child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation have haunted our community in Keighley and across the Bradford district for far too long. As we look at the recommendations, does the Home Secretary agree that the voices of victims and survivors should be at the heart of that, so we do not forget that those voices are important?
Grant Shapps
Absolutely, yes. On behalf of the 7,300 victims and survivors who came forward in the course of the report, we owe them a duty to do exactly what my hon. Friend has suggested.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Home Secretary for his statement.
Point of Order
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For clarity—it is important for us to have the right timings—the shorter version of the agenda for today refers to a Westminster Hall debate on human rights legislation reform starting at 6 pm, but in the other version for the same day, it says that the debate starts at 6.30 pm. Can she tell us which is right?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is at 6 o’clock.
Out-of-Turn Supplementary Estimates 2022-23
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
I beg to move,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2023—
(1) for expenditure by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
(a) further resources, not exceeding £60,176,000,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 794 of Session 2022-23, and
(b) a further sum, not exceeding £60,176,000,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament; and
(2) for expenditure by HM Treasury:
(a) further resources, not exceeding £11,175,000,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as set out in HC 794 of Session 2022-23, and
(b) a further sum, not exceeding £11,175,000,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.
This motion provides for an out-of-turn supplementary estimate for the urgent expenditure of two Departments—the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and His Majesty’s Treasury. The supplementary estimate provides the resources and cash to allow the Government to help to reduce energy bill rises this winter. It also provides capital funding for the Bank of England in support of its operations as a result of a long-standing indemnity.
I will briefly explain what the two departmental requests cover. First, the House is well aware of the cost of living increases caused by Putin’s war in Ukraine and the consequential impact on fuel bills from Europe’s reliance on Russian gas. Families were worried about energy bills, which some independent forecasts said could be £6,000 a year. This is a compassionate Conservative Government who will always be on the side of the most vulnerable, which is why we acted quickly and decisively to address concerns about paying for heating this winter. We did that through the establishment of the energy price guarantee scheme to cap the unit price that consumers pay for electricity and gas. That means that a household consuming the average amount of energy will pay no more than the equivalent of £2,500 a year. Many, of course, will pay far less.
In addition, the Government have protected businesses with the energy bill relief scheme. Those combined measures will provide households and businesses with confidence and certainty this winter, up to the end of March next year. It was right to act fast and to prioritise a simple option that ensures that nobody is left out.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The second package for businesses also extends to public services. Two primary schools in my constituency have been in touch, because their energy bills have gone up fivefold from £30,000 to £150,000 a year. Undoubtedly, the package put forward will help them a bit, but I am getting feedback from schools that six months is not enough to plan ahead, particularly when their budgets for next year have already been set. They are having to make terribly difficult decisions about laying off teaching assistants and cutting school trips and extracurricular activities. Will the Minister consider at least a year-long package of support for schools and other public services?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the package extends to not just businesses but schools, hospitals, the public sector and charities—the important third sector. She articulates well the concern of her local schools; of course, it is important to have as much time and certainty as possible to plan. I am sure that the Minister for Climate, who is next to me, and the Secretary of State for Education will have heard her points.
The House will note that both these energy schemes are expensive. Indeed, they were the largest single element of the plans to which the gilt market reacted in previous weeks. Rather than an indefinite and open-ended liability, therefore, the Government will launch a Treasury-led review on how to support households and businesses after April 2023.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Can the Minister give the House some idea of how sensitive the putative cost of £60 billion until March is to the actual prices of gas and electricity? Is there a possibility that, with lower prices, it might be considerably less?
Andrew Griffith
I defer to my right hon. Friend on all matters economic, but he is absolutely right that the Government had to act and come forward with an estimate, and that global gas and energy prices are volatile. We are proceeding on the basis of a particular set of assumptions, but if those things change, of course we will return to the House with an update.
The second departmental request relates to capital funding for the Bank of England. Since 2009, the asset purchase facility, a subsidiary entity of the Bank of England, has been a policy tool of the independent Monetary Policy Committee. The APF supported the MPC’s objective of stimulating the economy to try to keep inflation at its 2% target. By far the largest element of the APF was so-called quantitative easing, under which the Bank of England has purchased to date a total of £856 billion-worth of gilts and corporate bonds. The Treasury rightly indemnifies the APF and the Bank against any losses from those authorised operations.
In 2012, the Bank and the Treasury agreed that it would be prudent for cash management purposes that any excess cash in the APF would be transferred to HMT at the end of each quarter and that if there were a deficit, the cash would be transferred in the other direction. To date, the APF has regularly transferred cash to the Treasury. In February, however, the MPC announced that it would start unwinding QE, initially by not reinvesting redemption proceeds. Further, on 21 September, the MPC announced its decision to unwind £80 billion of its stock of gilts acquired under QE over a 12-month period, including through a programme of active gilts sales that are due to start soon.
Accompanied by the recent rise in the Bank rate, that means that the overall net position has altered from one of receiving cash over the past 10 years to having to pay out under the indemnity. The outflows requested today are therefore the counterpart of previous receipts in the life cycle of the scheme. The eventual size of the net payments to or from His Majesty’s Treasury should not be used as a measure of the success of asset purchases or of the impact of the schemes on the public purse as a whole. The schemes should instead be judged by the degree to which they meet their objectives for monetary policy and financial stability. I should point out to the House that the value of these payments is difficult to predict. Future market prices and the Bank rate will impact on the amounts required, and the Bank of England MPC decision on sales may itself change over time. Any adjustment in the payments, either up or down, will be reflected in the Treasury’s usual requests in future main or supplementary estimates in the normal way.
Given all that, this is an important motion for the continuation of Government business, and I commend it to the House.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Today’s debate is unusual in terms of parliamentary process. The last time that supplementary estimates were considered out of turn was in October 2008, when an estimate was presented to give the Treasury funding to meet costs during the financial crisis. This is no small matter. These out-of-turn estimates will increase overall spending by £71.4 billion, and I would like to briefly raise certain points on behalf of the Opposition so that they are put on record and the Minister has a chance to respond.
First, the largest component of these estimates is the £60 billion that the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy is seeking through its resource annually managed expenditure budget. This funding is due to be split almost equally on implementing a per unit price cap for domestic energy users and a per unit price cap for non-domestic energy users. The Opposition have been calling on the Government since August to implement an energy price freeze, so we are glad that support for businesses and families with energy bills is finally being implemented.
Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) set out a week ago, the passage of this energy support package through Parliament has been typical of the Tories’ hallmark chaos. During the debate on the legislation for this energy support, he pointed out that the now outgoing Prime Minister had gone
“on and on about her decisive action of a two-year guarantee”,
and he reminded us that she had
“even derided the Opposition’s approach of a six-month freeze”.—[Official Report, 17 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 441.]
That was before U-turning and following our lead by implementing a six-month package. However, despite the U-turns, the Government’s approach differs in crucial respects from ours. Our plan was for a real freeze, whereas the Government’s approach still sees a rise, and of course the Government have refused to use a windfall tax on oil and gas producers’ excess profits to help fund this financial support.
Moving on, the second component of these estimates comprises just over £11 billion of capital annually managed expenditure to fund payments to the Bank of England’s asset purchase facility under the terms of its indemnity by the Treasury, as the Minister set out. This part of the debate is particularly laden with financial terminology, but I will make my point to the Minister as simply as I can. The Bank of England has used quantitative easing to support the economy through lending to households and businesses. This has been carried out by buying Government bonds or other financial assets from private investors through the vehicle known as the asset purchase facility. The asset purchase facility borrows the money to buy these bonds from the Bank and pays the Bank rate—the headline rate set by the Monetary Policy Committee—on that loan. It can therefore make profits or losses, as we have heard, depending on the difference between the Bank rate and the return on the assets it holds.
The Treasury has indemnified the asset purchase facility against any losses it incurs, and of course it receives any running profits. A crucial determinant of whether the Treasury—the public purse—receives profits or losses is therefore the Bank rate. No one is denying that, since the scheme’s inception, it has been expected that, after receiving profits during years of the Bank rate being set low, at some point the Treasury would need to pay out on its indemnity of losses as, for instance, the Bank rate was expected to rise. However, if people thought the public finances were likely to pay for those losses in a relatively stable and orderly fashion, it seems extremely unlikely that the Government would have needed to make the payment by way of an out-of-turn estimate—the first such emergency payment in 14 years.
As the House of Commons Library put it in its briefing, published on Friday, the speed and scale of this cash flow appears to have been unexpected. In the briefing, the House of Commons Library acknowledged that it has been known for a long time that the Treasury would eventually need to make cash payments to the asset purchase facility, but:
“Despite that, the scale and speed of the impact leading to cash flowing from HM Treasury to APF may have been unexpected by HM Treasury, leading to this out-of-turn Estimate. It is also not clear how much of the impact may have been caused by events after the publication of the Main Estimate, for instance the hit to the gilt markets after the publication of the Government’s Growth Plan in September 2022.”
The implication is very clear: this payment to the Bank of England is being made urgently and unexpectedly—the first such out-of-turn payment in 14 years—and it comes straight after the kamikaze mini-Budget. What we are seeing is yet more of the damage done by the Conservatives. The £11 billion bill before us today is a brutal reminder that the Tories created this economic crisis and that working people are paying the price.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am glad the Minister agreed that the £60 billion for the energy scheme will of course adjust according to market prices, and let us hope that the current downward trend in some of the gas prices is continued. We need a mild winter and other bits of good fortune, otherwise we could be back facing even bigger bills. I am sure we are all appreciative of the fact that the new Chancellor wishes to review the scheme after March, because this is a very expensive scheme and there may be better ways of doing it to contain the expenditure.
I hope, for example, that consideration will be given, where price controls are still being offered to consumers, to limiting the amount of subsidised fuel any household can buy to a reasonable amount for a normal household, so that those who are in richer households and making much bigger demands on the fuel system would pay for the additional fuel they need—if they are lucky enough to have a heated swimming pool, or whatever it is—and would pay the full price on the extra fuel that such luxuries require. That is offered as a hopeful idea of how one can start to grapple with the very high costs of this scheme without in any way undermining the crucial guarantee to all those who are struggling with their bills already and want this kind of security.
I also have some concerns about the Bank of England estimate. It is quite true that, from Chancellor Darling onwards, quantitative easing decisions have always been jointly taken by Chancellors of the Exchequer and Governors of the Bank of England. One of the main reasons why they have always been joint decisions is that the Bank of England always understandably insisted on a complete capital guarantee against losses on the bonds, because it was envisaging buying so many bonds that they became very big for the Bank of England balance sheet, and it wanted to be reassured that the Treasury and taxpayers stood behind the system in case of losses.
To the extent that this supplementary estimate is to make good losses on bonds that the Bank of England is selling, I have these questions. First, why does the Bank of England think it must sell bonds at this juncture, when the United Kingdom bond market, the American bond market and lots of other bond markets around the world are particularly depressed by the need for a counter-inflation strategy based on high interest rates? We are crystalising a loss that, as I understand it, the Treasury then has to pay for, whereas if we have an unrealised loss, no payments are of course needed until eventual redemption, and very often the redemption value of the bond is considerably higher than today’s price in the market. I cannot quite understand why the Bank needs to sell these bonds now, and as this has always been a joint policy in which Chancellors have been very heavily involved and have heard Bank of England advice—Chancellors had to sign it off because the taxpayer is at risk, not the Bank of England itself—I hope this will be carefully re-examined.
To those who say that we do need to be selling bonds as well as putting up interest rates to curb inflation, I would say they should be careful not to overdo it. If the Bank really does feel it has to tighten even more, it can do so by a further rise in interest rates; it does not have to do so by selling bonds. Very directly, as we see tonight, the sale of these bonds can realise a loss and then can trigger a cash requirement on taxpayers and the Treasury at an extremely bad time for such a cash requirement. I think all of us have much better priorities than paying for bonds that are underwater, when we see the current state of the economy and the need to route more money to individuals and companies in the right ways, to see off a longer and deeper downturn and provide some balance in the public accounts. I ask the Minister and Chancellor to think again, and to talk again to the Governor of the Bank of England about their joint responsibility. They must ask whether this is really the right time to be crystalising losses, resulting in unspecified amounts of money that will have to be paid.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the SNP spokesperson, Alison Thewliss.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is odd to be agreeing on the spending of such phenomenal amounts of money in a near-empty Chamber. It would perhaps be sensible for the House to scrutinise such matters slightly more than this, but I am sure that those of us here will do our best.
These are incredibly significant changes compared with the main estimates passed by this House just in July, and the sums of money going to the energy support package and the asset purchase facility are eyewatering. I would be interested to hear from the Minister about the relationship between the money for the asset purchase facility, and the disastrous impact of the mini-Budget, because it strikes me that all this is coming at the worst possible time. Ordinary taxpayers have been left paying the price for the UK Government’s reckless mini-Budget, with Government bonds incurring a loss for the first time since 2009. The Office for National Statistics projected the loss to taxpayers just last month at £156 million, and even with the changes that the UK Government have made since the mini-Budget and its reversal, there has been significant damage to the UK’s fiscal outlook.
What is the relationship between the intervention that the Bank of England had to make during the past couple of weeks and the interventions being paid for in these estimates? Last week, in a letter to MPs on the Treasury Committee, the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability noted:
“There has been a particular increase in volatility in the UK markets…The five largest daily moves in the 30-year inflation-linked gilt, in data that dates back to 2000, have all been since the 23 September”.
That was, of course, the day of the mini-Budget, which has had a significant and long-lasting impact on the credibility of the UK Government and their ability to manage the economy. What further discussions have Ministers had with the Bank of England? The Bank was clear to the Treasury Committee that it did not have a full briefing ahead of the mini-Budget, and it told the Committee:
“Had they asked us what the market reaction would be, we would have interacted with them.”
Such interaction by the Government with experts who would have told them that their decisions were not particularly wise seems to be lacking. If there is anything to be said for the new Government, perhaps they will consult experts and listen to them more than those who are leaving the Government fairly soon.
On the energy support package, I have a lot of concern for my constituents—both businesses and individuals—come April. People who run businesses have been in touch with me. They want to know what will happen with the business support scheme come April, because as yet there has been no clarity on that from the UK Government. There has also been little clarity about what will happen for individuals. This had been talked about as a two-year support package, which gave people a sense of relief, and a sense that even if prices are higher, at least they know they will be slightly more secure. The measures that have been introduced have ripped up that guarantee entirely, and people are incredibly worried about it.
Let me give an example from my Friday surgery at Toryglen community base. Toryglen is one of the community hubs that we all depend on in our constituencies. It runs various events, is a hub for many different things, and has a nursery as part of its building. Its gas bill has gone from £9,700 a year to £62,273.36—[Interruption.] I see the Minister raising his eyebrows at that, but that is the increase. There is no way that any organisation, whether a company or a charitable organisation such as Toryglen community base, can afford that. I implore Ministers to listen to people in those circumstances, because they have to sign those contracts. If they do not, it will cost them more than the £62,000 they have been quoted. There is no alternative for them, and they do not know what will happen come April. It is irresponsible for Ministers not to give clarity to organisations in such circumstances.
The energy provider helpfully gave Toryglen community base a printout, which it passed on to me, stating that the bill is a 539% increase. Nobody can meet that. Businesses will fold and charities will not be able to provide the services that we all depend on, and I want to know the UK Government’s answer to that point. Toryglen community base was also given a quote for the following year, 2024, of £50,287.59. It is not as if prices are falling to any significant extent, and even if it survives the coming year, the bill quoted for the year afterwards is still huge, yet the energy price guarantee for businesses finishes in April. The Minister must explain what will happen to such businesses. We appreciate the cost of measures such as these, which we see in these estimates, but there will be a cost to society more broadly if all those businesses fold, charities cease to exist, and ordinary people in their homes cannot afford to put on the heating, turn on the lights and use the power on which they depend.
Thought must be given to customers who are off the gas grid and rely on heating oil. It costs more than £1,000 to fill an oil tank, often with a £500 minimum order requirement. The UK Government’s £100 of support is nowhere near adequate. Families cannot afford this. In Scotland nearly 130,000 homes rely on alternative fuels such as oil for heating their homes, and they need to know what will be coming later in the year and have certainty so that they can fill up their tanks. People are putting things on credit cards and getting into more and more debt, because they cannot afford this. There must also be some further indication about how vulnerable non-domestic customers will be identified. Again, there is little clarity on that from the UK Government. I hope there will be more, but there is not as things stand.
The eye-watering sums of money that we are talking about sound far away from people who just need an extra couple of hundred pounds to fill up a fuel tank or pay their bills. We should not, however, forget about the very real impact on businesses, charities and individuals of these huge sums of money, and of the money that we will be paying back for years because of the shambolic way the UK Government dealt with this issue. People have not voted for the chaos that there will be for many years to come or the prospect of further austerity as a result of the UK Government’s poor choices, and should not be expected to pay for it. In particular, people in Scotland are facing a higher toll in many ways, due to the cost of fuel in rural areas and unfair grid charging in Scotland. Again, the UK Government have not done anything to deal with that, and they have not decoupled the price of gas from the price of renewables. These are not choices that Scotland has made. Scotland would make different choices if we were independent, and we would ensure that nobody in Scotland went to bed cold and hungry.
The Minister for Climate (Graham Stuart)
I thank all Members who have spoken in this wide-ranging debate. The hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) spoke for His Majesty’s Opposition, and I say to him that the decision on the timing of this provision was made by the Monetary Policy Committee as part of the Bank of England. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) made, as usual, the most perspicacious observations, not least about the importance of grappling with the high cost to the public purse of these interventions. As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, he was right to say that this very much depends on prices, and one hopes that we will see the costs coming in lower than in the estimate before the House.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) talked about the impact of prices on businesses and other organisations in her constituency. She is right that these are significant prices. They are the result of global prices. She will be aware that the EU is in a similar position and is looking at how best to break the link between gas prices and electricity prices. She will doubtlessly support the elements of the Energy Prices Bill that look to decouple those prices and do everything they can to hold prices down.
The hon. Lady will also observe that the world-leading contracts for difference scheme brought in by the Government and now widely mimicked by others has provided the capital certainty to make renewables in this country investible, thus leading to the transformation of our offshore wind. Renewables have gone from, I think, a pitiful 6.8% of electricity provision when Labour left power in 2010 to more than 40% today. Contracts for difference, brought forward by the Government, have not only contributed to that, but right now we are seeing tens of millions of pounds being paid back into the pot because of their structure, thus reducing costs that businesses and consumers would otherwise see.
Alison Thewliss
I appreciate the points that the Minister is making about contracts for difference, but does he not agree that the grid charging regime penalises generators of offshore and onshore wind in Scotland, making it more expensive for them to generate electricity than a power station in the south-east of England?
Graham Stuart
Grid charges need to reflect the costs involved. As the hon. Lady will be aware, we are reviewing and looking at how best to deal with the grid going forward, because the grid is fundamental to everything we want to do in this space. There is room for change, but I am not sure that I necessarily agree with her. I will wait for others more expert than me to come forward with recommendations for ministerial decision on how best to structure that. Removing price signals from the system would not be beneficial. We need price signals in there; that is right and proper.
The hon. Lady mentioned heating oil. I represent a rural constituency with many consumers on heating oil. The Government looked carefully and shared information showing that from September 2021 to September 2022, heating oil costs increased by average of about 147%. We also looked at what has happened to gas prices after the effect of the EPG, and they have increased by 130%. That is why the £100 covers that. The numbers are there—we can see what the average family spends and what the increase has been, so we can make the comparison.
Given the party that the hon. Lady represents, I understand that she will always say that we should do more. That is one thing, but what she cannot say—or she should not, and I appeal to her not to do so—is that it is not fair between those on the gas grid and those on heating oil. Some might want to do more overall, but I believe, and I think our numbers show, that we are creating something equitable between the two. It is important that people who are often in isolated rural areas and can feel hard done by are not told that they are being unfairly treated compared with others. They are not. Even if it suits a political purpose, it is important that politicians do not make such allegations unless there is a basis for them, because then they would be not serving those people well but misleading them. I know that she in particular would never want to do that.
Energy is an essential and unavoidable expense for households and businesses. The economic fallout from the pandemic and the ongoing war in Ukraine has led to unprecedented rises in energy prices. The Government will provide crucial support to families and businesses with their energy costs over the winter period.
Munira Wilson
I thank the Minister for giving way. I have finally won—he would not give way last week when I had an amendment to discuss on communal heating networks.
The Minister made a strong political point about fairness. Last week, I said that people on communal heating networks living in particular in blocks of flats in my constituency and across London and the country have faced heating price rises of more than 500%, yet the support package they were offered was not equivalent to that of other households, so there was a fundamental unfairness. Everybody is subject to the six-month review, so will the Minister guarantee from the Dispatch Box that when the Government review the package for other households, communal heat networks will get the equivalent support that they were promised all along? They were offered only six months.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is great that she mentions particular difficult cases with such passion. She will recognise that moving at speed to try to create something comparable for everyone, as we did, is challenging and complex. The purpose of the review is absolutely to look across the piece. We will continue to monitor the prices that people have to put up with, whether they are off grid or on communal heating networks, and we will also look to ensure that any future intervention is done in a way that is as fair and well informed as possible.
Through the energy price guarantee scheme, we are capping the price that consumers will pay for their electricity and gas bills, reducing the average household bill by about a third this winter and saving a typical household about £700. The scheme will run from October to March 2023. That is in addition to the £400 energy discount provided by the Government for all households through the energy bills support scheme. Support will be provided to non-domestic energy customers including businesses, charities, schools and hospitals through the energy bill relief scheme. That will provide a discount on non-domestic energy bills to protect against the significantly inflated wholesale gas and electricity prices that have affected non-domestic customers. That scheme will operate from October to March 2023 and provide an equivalent level of support to the domestic scheme.
The schemes, taken together, will provide essential support to families and businesses to see them through the winter. Looking beyond April, the Government cannot continue to be exposed to the volatility of wholesale gas and electricity prices. That would be unsustainable for both the taxpayer and the public finances. That is why the Government are committed to reviewing both the energy price guarantee scheme and the energy bill relief scheme to consider how we may support households and businesses over the longer term from April 2023.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2023—
(1) for expenditure by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
(a) further resources, not exceeding £60,176,000,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 794 of Session 2022-23, and
(b) a further sum, not exceeding £60,176,000,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament; and
(2) for expenditure by HM Treasury:
(a) further resources, not exceeding £11,175,000,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as set out in HC 794 of Session 2022-23, and
(b) a further sum, not exceeding £11,175,000,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.
Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolution relating to Out-of-Turn Supplementary Estimates, 2022-23;
That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Edward Argar, Andrew Griffith, Richard Fuller and Felicity Buchan bring in the Bill.
Supply and Appropriation (Adjustments) Bill
Presentation and First Reading, and remaining stages
Andrew Griffith accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the year ending with 31 March 2023; to authorise the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for that year; and to appropriate the supply authorised by this Act for that year.
Bill read the First time; to be printed (Bill 170).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Order, 19 October, and Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction): Business of the House
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Motion for Resolution ‘Stamp duty land tax (reduction)’ and to proceedings on any Bill brought in upon the Resolution:
Timetable
(1)(a) Proceedings on the Motion for Resolution ‘Stamp duty land tax (reduction)’, proceedings on presentation and first reading of any Bill brought in upon the Resolution, proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on the Motion for the Resolution and proceedings on Second Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting and 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 be taken on the second day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(d) This paragraph shall have effect notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of a Bill brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the proceedings on the Motion for the Resolution have been concluded and the Bill has been read the first time and ordered to be printed, the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill shall be read.
(3)(a) When the Bill has been read a second time 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) When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith, whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(4)(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.
(5) 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 (12)(a) of this Order.
(6) On a Motion 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.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (5)(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.
(8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (5)(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.
Other proceedings
(9) Provision may be made for the taking and bringing to a conclusion of any other proceedings on the Bill.
Miscellaneous
(10) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(11) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(12)(a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Motion for the Resolution or 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.
(13)(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.
(14)(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.
(15) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(16)(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.—(Richard Fuller.)
Ways and Means
Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction)
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 165 / Noes: 293 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 290 / Noes: 167 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I inform the House that I have selected amendment (a) in the name of Tim Farron.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Richard Fuller)
I beg to move, “TABLE A: RESIDENTIAL Part of relevant consideration Percentage So much as does not exceed £250,000 0% So much as exceeds £250,000 but does not exceed £925,000 5% So much as exceeds £925,000 but does not exceed £1,500,000 10% The remainder (if any) 12%” “TABLE A: RESIDENTIAL Part of relevant consideration Percentage So much as does not exceed £250,000 3% So much as exceeds £250,000 but does not exceed £925,000 8% So much as exceeds £925,000 but does not exceed £1,500,000 13% The remainder (if any) 15%” “TABLE A: RESIDENTIAL Rate bands Percentage £0 to £250,000 0% Over £250,000 1%” “TABLE A: RESIDENTIAL Part of relevant consideration Percentage So much as does not exceed £425,000 0% Any remainder (so far as not exceeding £625,000) 5%”
That—
(1) Part 4 of the Finance Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 55(1B) (amount of stamp duty land tax chargeable: general), for Table A substitute—
(3) In Schedule 4ZA (higher rates of stamp duty land tax for additional dwellings etc), for the Table A in section 55(1B) mentioned in paragraph 1(2) substitute—
(4) In Schedule 5 (amount of SDLT chargeable in respect of rent), in paragraph 2(3), for Table A substitute—
(5) In Schedule 6ZA (relief for first-time buyers)—
(a) in paragraph 1(3), for “£500,000” substitute “£625,000”, and
(b) for the Table A in section 55(1B) mentioned in paragraph 4 substitute—
(6) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to land transactions the effective date of which falls on or after 23 September 2022.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
The former Chancellor of the Exchequer announced cuts to stamp duty land tax on 23 September, with a motion moved following debate on the economic statement to implement that on a temporary basis. This resolution now confirms the House’s agreement to that motion, allowing the Government to introduce a full Bill to implement the changes permanently. The Government’s changes to stamp duty increased the nil-rate threshold for all purchases of residential property in England and Northern Ireland from £125,000 to £250,000. For first-time buyers, the nil-rate threshold has increased from £300,000 to £425,000, with the maximum property price for which first time buyers’ relief can be claimed increased from £500,000 to £625,000.
This resolution is simply a procedural requirement. It is needed to allow the Government to introduce a Bill amending stamp duty land tax legislation. We will come on to the substance of the Bill on Second Reading in just a moment. Furthermore, there will be an opportunity to discuss the line-by-line detail of the Bill in Committee at a later point.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I beg to move amendment (a), Leave out paragraph 3.
I appreciate the contribution from the Minister. The amendment, which is supported by right hon. and hon. Friends, concerns a particular element of the proposal which is of great concern not just to me but to many Members on both sides of the House and from different parts of the country. It is, I expect, the unintended consequence of the proposal on communities already suffering under the weight of excessive second home ownership and the explosion of Airbnbs eating up the long-term rented market. There is obviously a debate to be had, which we will have next, about the proposal itself, the stamp duty cut, for which there are arguments that I fully understand. What I am concerned about is that the cut will apply to all properties, including to people buying their second, third, 22nd or 23rd home. My concern is not because I am consumed by the politics of envy, but because I am consumed with concern for my community and many others like it.
Since the pandemic, we have seen the explosion of a problem that was already difficult to start with: the rising proportion of second homes in communities such as mine. The former Chancellor and soon to be new Prime Minister—I congratulate him—my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), made an error at the beginning of the pandemic when he created the temporary stamp duty holiday. The immediate result was that in the first few months of the pandemic 80% of all house sales in my constituency, and in communities like it, were in the second home market. I hope and assume that was not the intention of the former Chancellor and soon-to-be Prime Minister, but that was the consequence. Furthermore, we saw a 32% increase in the number of holiday lets during the pandemic, up from a huge number to start off with in the lakes and the dales. That is the collapse of the long-term private rented market into the Airbnb market.
I will be trying, by various means, to get the Government to bring in new categories of planning use to control excessive second home ownership and the collapse of the long-term private rented sector into the Airbnb sector. My aim today is to stop the Government making it any worse. If my amendment is not agreed to, the Government’s proposal in the next debate will be to do some good things, but also to accidentally do some bad things. That bad thing will be to add fuel to the fire of the explosion of excessive second home ownership in places such as the lakes and the dales, Cornwall, Northumberland, the Peak district and every other part of our country of a similar kind.
What an explosion of second home ownership of this kind means is that our communities are robbed of their full-time population. We see people forced out, unable to find or afford a home where they can raise their family. We then see footfall and demand for local services, such as the local pub, the local post office, bus services and local schools, massively reduced as a consequence. We see schools closed and communities hollowed out. Not only is it awful, upsetting and utterly regrettable to see families forced out of the places they were raised—I deal with these cases, case by case, and see people in extreme housing need because our existing housing stock has been gobbled up by second homes and holiday lets—but we also see a material impact on our economy and the consequences for our workforce.
At the moment, Morecambe Bay hospitals have 25% of all beds blocked. Why? Because social care is in crisis. Why? Because there is nowhere available for anybody who works in social care to be able to live in our communities. I can tell the Minister that 63% of all hospitality and tourism businesses in the lakes last year had to operate below capacity. Why? Because they could not find the staff. Why? Because there is nowhere for those people to live.
A housing crisis that already existed before the pandemic has become a catastrophe, in part because of an error made by the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) at the beginning of the pandemic. He created a stamp duty holiday that created that boom. My amendment gives the Government the ability to do good without accidentally doing terrific harm to areas such as the lakes and the dales. It is an opportunity for the Government to prove that they do not take rural communities for granted. I hope that the Minister will hear what I have to say and act accordingly.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
The last time we debated a stamp duty cut in this House was summer 2020. During that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) made it clear that we do not oppose the principle of additional support for homeowners and buyers, and action to stimulate the housing market. The same principle applies today. At the time, however, my hon. Friend rightly questioned why the Government’s plans include such significant support for second home owners, landlords and holiday home buyers. Why have the Government today designed a scheme that gives so much help to second home owners?
We estimate that the Bill means subsidising second home owners to the tune of £300 million a year. That is not only a very significant amount of public money, but an amount that will be paid out each and every year. How can the Government justify that spending?
What is more, any benefit that the stamp duty changes may have for first-time buyers, or for the housing market in general, will pale into insignificance when compared with the havoc that the Government’s kamikaze mini-Budget unleashed on our economy. The Conservatives’ recklessness has seen more than 40% of available mortgages withdrawn from the market. It has seen lenders begin to price in interest rates of over 6% for two-year, fixed-rate deals. It has led to families facing their mortgage repayments increasing by £500 a month.
Despite the inevitable U-turns on all but a few measures, the damage has been done. No matter how much the Conservatives shuffle the personalities in Downing Street, as the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), put it a week ago:
“People will be paying a Tory mortgage premium for years to come”.—[Official Report, 17 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 398.]
So we come to the fundamental question behind this resolution: whether spending public money on this stamp duty cut is the right priority in the midst of an economic crisis that the Conservatives have thrust upon us.
Under Labour, all our proposals are fully funded. Our approach is governed by clear fiscal rules and value for money is at the heart of how we would manage the public finances. Our approach to the economy will be even more important than ever, given the damage that the Tories have caused and the mess they have made. In truth, we still do not know just how big that mess will prove to be. As we stand here today, we still have not seen the forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility in relation to the damage that the Tories have caused.
The easy thing for the Opposition to do would be simply to vote for the stamp duty cut today, but that would not be right or responsible. At a time when our economy is reeling from the long-term damage that the Conservatives have done, when current and future homebuyers are facing spiralling and prohibitive mortgage costs, and when we are still flying in the dark as the Tories refuse to publish the OBR forecasts, it is not the time to spend £1.7 billion a year on this tax cut. We will be opposing the Government’s plans.
Richard Fuller
I listened with interest to the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), who seemed to be using up all his greatest hits of criticism ahead of Second Reading, so I am not sure what he will say when we come to that. We always look forward to hearing Labour Members talk to us about the economy—they did such a good job with it last time they were in power.
Let me turn, more constructively, to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). His concerns come from a good place. I have had the privilege of listening to him, on the Front and Back Benches, talk about this issue and the impact on his constituents. I know that he comes from a good place and not, as he said, from the politics of envy.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
As the Minister will know, there is a lot of concern on the Government Benches about the proposal’s impact on second homes and holiday lets, and there will be a lot of sympathy for the amendment from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). Last week, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave me an assurance that the Treasury was looking at this issue. Will the Minister reaffirm that the Treasury understands that this is an issue and that we will look at how we can address it as the Bill progresses through the House?
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He echoes some of the points made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale about the broad range of opportunities to address the issue, because there are such wide-ranging effects. The purpose of the amendment, however, is to create a separate schedule of rates in the stamp duty land tax system for those purchasing an additional property. That would mean that the purchase of additional property would not be included in the scope of the resolution or the ensuing Bill.
The Government already have higher rates for additional dwellings, which were introduced in 2016 and which apply a 3% surcharge to the standard residential rates of stamp duty. That surcharge will continue to apply. This means that, although the Government’s changes to stamp duty will ensure that around 43% of transactions will pay no stamp duty land tax, none of those will be purchases of second homes or investments in buy-to-let properties. The Government have taken meaningful action to support local communities on second homes. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to look at that.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I reiterate the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). Would it be possible to meet the Treasury team as the Bill progresses to ensure that coastal communities such as mine in North Devon do not continue to be blighted by the march of second homes?
Richard Fuller
I am always happy to engage with colleagues across the House. As I was saying, the Government have taken meaningful action on a range of issues, most recently through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which will introduce a council tax second homes premium.
Tim Farron
I am grateful to the Minister for the tone of his response, but I am disappointed that it looks as though he will not accept my amendment, not least because it lays the ground to take seriously the points made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) about proactively tackling excessive second-home ownership and holiday lets. We need to do something now at least to not make the situation worse, and I fear that, unamended, the Minister’s proposals will make things worse. We have been trying to amend the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in Committee so that there are measures that can control, through planning, the number of second homes and holiday lets in communities such as mine, but we have had no success so far. Will he meet me and others who are concerned to look at how we can table amendments and make proposals through the Treasury that would make a material difference to communities such as mine?
Richard Fuller
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), I am very happy to engage with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale about this issue, but I say again that there are multiple ways in which we can deal with these issues through different aspects of Government. I hope that he will take this up with other Departments as well, and I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
“TABLE A: RESIDENTIAL | |
|---|---|
Part of relevant consideration | Percentage |
So much as does not exceed £250,000 | 0% |
So much as exceeds £250,000 but does not exceed £925,000 | 5% |
So much as exceeds £925,000 but does not exceed £1,500,000 | 10% |
The remainder (if any) | 12%” |
“TABLE A: RESIDENTIAL | |
|---|---|
Part of relevant consideration | Percentage |
So much as does not exceed £250,000 | 3% |
So much as exceeds £250,000 but does not exceed £925,000 | 8% |
So much as exceeds £925,000 but does not exceed £1,500,000 | 13% |
The remainder (if any) | 15%” |
“TABLE A: RESIDENTIAL | |
|---|---|
Rate bands | Percentage |
£0 to £250,000 | 0% |
Over £250,000 | 1%” |
“TABLE A: RESIDENTIAL | |
|---|---|
Part of relevant consideration | Percentage |
So much as does not exceed £425,000 | 0% |
Any remainder (so far as not exceeding £625,000) | 5%” |
Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction) Bill
Monday 24th October 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Act 2023 View all Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 288 / Noes: 152 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Felicity Buchan)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We face challenging times, and challenging decisions need to be made, but one thing on which I hope we can all agree is that home ownership must remain within reach, and we must support the property market where we can. To do that, we are making good our promise to ensure that hard work is rewarded and people can keep more of their hard-earned money when they buy a home.
The property industry plays a hugely important role in our economy. It is crucial to our growth prospects, and it supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and businesses. Home ownership remains one of the surest ways to give people a stake in the success of our economy, and we know that stamp duty really affects people’s decisions on whether to buy a property. The Bill confirms a significant reduction in the cost of moving home and getting on the housing ladder, which will allow more people to buy and to move each year. It will also mean more business for painters, decorators, moving companies, plumbers, electricians, and all the industries that are reliant on a healthy housing market. More transactions each year will mean that more people can move more easily to find work, and that will boost labour mobility at a time when people do not need barriers to changing jobs.
Like many Members on both sides of the House, I grew up in a country where home ownership was a dream, but an achievable one. It is only right that we give those who are now seeking to climb on to the housing ladder a helping hand, so that this dream does not slip out of reach. Since 2010, we have helped more than 800,000 households to purchase homes through Government-backed schemes such as Help to Buy and Right to Buy, and we have made sure that stamp duty land tax works for those who wish to get on to and up the property ladder.
First, in April 2016, we introduced the higher rates of stamp duty for those purchasing additional properties, which form part of the Government’s commitment to first-time buyers. These rates are 3% above standard residential stamp duty rates. The following year, in the 2017 autumn Budget, we introduced first-time buyer relief to permanently increase the price at which first-time buyers start paying stamp duty. The Government are proud that nearly 700,000 purchases have benefited from this relief since its introduction. Because of our action, the annual number of first-time buyers is at a 20-year high.
However, this is not just about how we help people purchase within the existing stock of housing; we are also boosting investment in home building and affordable housing. In 2019-20, nearly 243,000 net additional dwellings were delivered—the largest number in almost 20 years—and the Government are on track to meet their commitment to deliver 1 million additional homes during the current Parliament. In the 2021 spending review, we also announced £11.5 billion for the affordable homes programme to build 180,000 more of the affordable, quality homes that the country needs, including tens of thousands for social rent.
The Government’s cuts in stamp duty land tax were implemented on 23 September with immediate effect, and we have introduced the Bill to confirm that change. Stamp duty applies to purchases of property or land in England and Northern Ireland, with land transaction taxes devolved to Scotland and Wales. Devolved Administrations will receive Barnett consequentials for that change, in the usual way. The Bill will increase the nil rate threshold, which is the level at which stamp duty starts to apply. It will double the threshold at which people start paying stamp duty from £125,000 to £250,000, saving a family purchasing an averagely priced home £2,500.
As I mentioned a moment ago, in 2017 the Government introduced first-time buyer relief, which applied a higher nil rate threshold for purchasers who had never previously owned a property as part of our commitment to supporting first-time buyers. The Bill will expand the generosity of that relief to ensure that those purchasing their first home pay no stamp duty on purchases up to £425,000, up from £300,000. The maximum purchase value for which first-time buyers can claim the relief has also been increased, from £500,000 to £625,000.
These cuts in stamp duty will mean that an estimated 43% of transactions each year will attract no stamp duty whatsoever, up from 25% before the introduction of the Bill. No one purchasing a second home or investing in a buy-to-let property will cease paying stamp duty, as the 3% surcharge on the purchase of additional dwellings will continue to apply. More than half all transactions in the east midlands, the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber will attract no stamp duty at all, with about six in ten transactions in the north-east having no stamp duty liability.
We are lifting significant numbers of families, first-time buyers and home movers out of stamp duty, helping those aspiring to own their own home. That means that a couple buying an average home in the east midlands worth about £248,000 would otherwise have paid nearly £2,500 in stamp duty, but will now pay nothing at all. This measure will directly help people to keep more of their hard-earned money. An estimated 90% of those claiming first-time buyer relief will now be lifted out of stamp duty entirely. First-time buyers are able to access up to £8,750 in relief following the Government’s changes.
I should make it clear that these changes apply to stamp duty land tax, which covers only England and Northern Ireland, but they also mean—through the usual block grant adjustment—an additional £100 million for the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales.
The United Kingdom has always been a nation of homeowners, and under our plans it will continue to be so. We are cutting stamp duty for hard-working people and supporting them in getting on to and up the housing ladder. The Bill will reduce the up-front costs of moving, it will support the hundreds of thousands of jobs reliant on a healthy property market and it will help give people who aspire to home ownership the means to make it a reality. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday was one month since the previous Chancellor delivered his mini-Budget. Since then we have had a month of utter chaos, a month of the most extraordinary U-turns and a month in which the Conservative party recklessly inflicted damage on our economy—damage that the British public will be paying for and that will take years to fix, yet the Conservatives are clinging on to power, putting their party’s interest before the country’s. We are here today debating one of the very few remaining pieces of the former Chancellor’s mini-Budget.
As hon. and right hon. Members will know, the current Chancellor—I assume he is still in post as we speak—U-turned on almost all his predecessor’s plans. One of the measures he decided to keep was lifting the cap on bankers’ bonuses. It is particularly hard to understand why he chose to do so when even bankers themselves do not seem to have been advocating for it. In fact, it could involve reputational damage that I know many of them fear. None the less, lifting the cap remained a priority for the previous and current Chancellors.
As we know, the current Chancellor also decided to keep the legislation that reversed the national insurance rise and repealed the health and social care levy. We are glad that the Government finally followed the position that Labour set out over a year ago that raising taxes on working people in a cost of living crisis is wrong. The decision to reverse the national insurance rise was itself a U-turn by the current Chancellor, the outgoing Prime Minister and their colleagues on the position they held just last year. At least by doing the right thing the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) avoided doing a U-turn on a U-turn in this particular instance.
The current Chancellor also decided to keep the changes to stamp duty that were announced on 23 September and that we are debating today. Under these changes, which are the subject of the resolution we have just debated and the Bill that is now to be read a Second time, the nil rate threshold for stamp duty payments on residential properties is increased, effectively by removing the existing lowest band. There are consistent changes to the higher rates for additional dwellings and changes to the threshold and limits for first-time buyer relief.
Before I address the substance of the proposed changes, I would like to ask the Minister about the process of the legislation before us. In the business of the House statement on Thursday 13 October, the Leader of the House of Commons said that we would today be debating
“a resolution relating to stamp duty land tax (reduction), followed by all stages of the Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction) Bill.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 258.]
Four days later, the current Chancellor confirmed that the stamp duty changes would proceed. However, during her next business of the House statement on 20 October, the Leader of the House said that we would no longer be considering all stages of the Bill today, only its Second Reading. That most recent statement by the Leader of the House did not set a date for the Bill’s remaining stages. What message does that send?
Treasury Ministers will know that, across the country, families and businesses are crying out for stability. In the housing market, as in many parts of the economy, certainty is prized. That is why, when the stamp duty cut was announced, it took effect straight away. It had to be in place immediately to avoid giving people a reason to delay their home purchases as they waited for an announced change to come into force. Indeed, the policy paper published alongside this announcement on 23 September confirmed that no consultation had been carried out on the measure. The reason stated was:
“It would not be in the public interest to consult, as this may have an adverse effect on the housing market if buyers delayed purchases during the consultation period.”
Yet now, the remaining stages of the Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction) Bill have been delayed.
This last-minute flip-flop of parliamentary business sends the message that it is open to the new Prime Minister and whoever his Chancellor might be to change their mind over these stamp duty changes. By delaying the Bill’s remaining stages, the Government have introduced more uncertainty into the housing market, which is the last thing anyone needs. I do not know what the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), will be able to say that will give homebuyers any confidence in this matter, but I urge him to try to give them and the housing sector whatever assurances he can.
I fear that the Government have learned nothing from the mistakes they made two years ago about uncertainty when it comes to stamp duty. As hon. Members may remember, when stamp duty was last changed in the summer of 2020, the legislation was rushed through Parliament earlier than planned. This happened after someone thought they were being clever by briefing the press about the plans of the then Chancellor—now the incoming Prime Minister—three months ahead of their being implemented. In that debate, the former Member for South West Hertfordshire and Chief Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke, was quoted as having said that this trailing of plans months ahead would be “hugely counter-productive”. He said that even “two days of speculation” over such plans would be “unhelpful”. So this concern is nothing new. It is crucial that stamp duty changes are not left hanging. Decisions either way must be executed swiftly and with certainty. These last-minute changes to parliamentary business seem to be another reminder that the Conservatives are not fit to govern.
As I said in the previous debate, it would be easy for us as the Opposition simply to vote for the stamp duty cut today, but it would not be right and it would not be responsible. At a time when our economy is reeling from the long-term damage the Conservatives have done, when current and future homebuyers are facing spiralling and prohibitive mortgage costs and when we are still flying in the dark as the Tories refuse to publish the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts, this is not the time to spend £1.7 billion a year on this tax cut.
There is so much else the Government could be doing to support the housing market and to help people to get a secure and decent home that they can afford. Beyond restoring financial stability, they could go further and adopt some of our plans to introduce a mortgage guarantee scheme, to raise stamp duty for foreign buyers and to give first-time buyers first dibs on newly built properties. Those are some of the plans we need after 12 years under the Tories, during which home ownership rates have fallen. Compared with when the Conservatives came to power in 2010, there are now 800,000 fewer households under 45 who own their own home. At the same time, nearly 1 million more people are renting privately. Some of them might once have been hopeful that the Government would deliver on their commitment to ban no-fault section 21 evictions, but that promise was made more than three years ago. It was pushed into the long grass, and it was rumoured a few weeks ago that it was about to be dropped. Now, with a new Prime Minister coming through the revolving door, its fate is anyone’s guess. The only safe conclusion is that the Tories cannot deliver the security, stability and affordability that people need.
This debate is focused on the stamp duty changes that the Government are seeking to approve, but it cannot be taken outside the context of their disastrous mishandling of the economy. After 12 years of failure, the Conservatives have shredded any claim to economic competence they might once have thought they had. We are suffering an economic crisis created in Downing Street. The damage has been done and working people are paying the price. The Conservatives can rearrange the personalities in Downing Street, but they have inflicted damage on our country and have no mandate to govern. It is time for the British people to have a say on our country’s future. It is time for a fresh start with a Government who are ready to sort out the Tories’ mess, to grow the economy for working people and to build a fairer, greener future. It is time for general election.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I will be extremely brief and fulfil my commitment to the shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up. The reason I rise to speak is that I met a group of constituents at the weekend and I said that I would use this debate to identify and explain the situation that they are facing in my constituency. I have listened to the Minister and to the sentiments that she put forward, which are well intentioned in many ways but do not reflect the reality of what my constituents are facing at the moment.
We have a housing crisis in my constituency, with overcrowding on a level we have not seen in maybe decades. We have homelessness, and there is no longer access to housing via council housing because our council housing stock has mainly been sold off. I do not think any new council houses have been constructed directly by the council.
The problem we face is that wage levels, after 12 years of austerity, mean that most of my constituents, particularly the young ones, are nowhere near striking distance of being able to purchase their own home, despite everything we have done, working with the financial sector, to encourage them to do so. Many people living in the rented sector and hoping to purchase their own home are seeing their wages devoured by the rents they have to pay. They cannot save up for a deposit, and when they look at mortgage rates, particularly after what has happened over the past few weeks, they have no hope of being able to cover mortgage costs.
Frankly, this Bill is no help whatsoever to my constituents. It is interesting to look at who it does help. When the former Chancellor, and soon-to-be Prime Minister, introduced similar measures during the pandemic, they benefited corporate landlords and the banks. I have 4,000 new properties being built in my constituency, and most of them will go to corporate landlords. Many will go to people moving from outside the area because of the Elizabeth line, and few will benefit local families or local young people.
We are seeing a boom in private landlordism in my constituency, where the buy-to-let property experience is one of high rents, poor maintenance and harassment by landlords, who are often completely unregulated. The Minister and the Government have said much about the Bill helping first-time buyers and about the doubling of the threshold benefiting all, but the Bill will largely benefit landlords and the banks that lend to them. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) mentioned, the Bill will also benefit second home purchasers.
I find it extraordinary that incorporated landlords can still offset 100% of their mortgage interest against profits. Between 1990 and 2020, we saw 41,700 landlords incorporate themselves in order to benefit from what is actually a tax-avoidance scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) mentioned the cost of this programme in the previous debate. On the estimate made on the day of the mini-Budget a few weeks ago, the cost is £1.655 billion. I find it hard to see how this is compatible with what the new Chancellor is saying about a new wave of austerity having to be forced upon us because of the mismanagement of the economy in recent weeks.
The Opposition will oppose this Bill, and I fully agree. This is not the time for such a measure. We could assist first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder through housing supply and reducing overall property costs. If the Government insist on proceeding with this Bill, we could protect the first-time buyer measures by paying for them through an excess profits tax on the landlords and banks that are profiting from the Government’s measures.
Finally, I repay the debt I owe my constituents from the weekend by saying that this Bill will not help people in my constituency. We need a new council house programme, a reduction in interest rates and investment in housing on a scale never seen before. We need housing that is accessible and affordable to all. Otherwise, I will have more homeless people, more people living in overcrowded properties and, yes, more people sleeping in beds in sheds trying to survive the next winter.
I plead with the Government to drop the Bill. I hope the incoming Prime Minister will not see this as a priority and that at next week’s Budget we will have a more rational debate about housing policy.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The housing crisis in this country is huge, and it is more than just an issue of supply. In my community, as I mentioned in the previous debate, a catastrophe has emerged over the past two years. I have never seen such appalling need. The average house price in my constituency is something like 12 times the average household income. The simple fact is that any benefit from this Bill will help, if we are lucky, a fraction of 1% of people who want to buy a house but are currently unable to do so.
This Bill is not a very good use of public money when we are in the throes of a Conservative Government heroically seeking to do their best to counter the impact of a Conservative Budget. This Bill is a surviving element of that disastrous Budget. It does not seem to be the best use of money, given that the majority of beneficiaries will be wealthy people who do not need a stamp duty cut. What it will do, as we said in the previous debate, is fuel a second home boom that is already causing a huge amount of damage to communities like mine.
I asked myself why this Bill is one of the few survivors of the disastrous mini-Budget. I can only conclude that it is because the people who are damaged and offended by it live in rural communities, so the Government feel that they can take them for granted. I put it on the record that these people will not be taken for granted. Again, the average house price in my community is spiralling towards £300,000, but people’s incomes are significantly less than £30,000 per household, never mind per individual. When there are things the Government could do to address the affordable housing crisis, it is all the more frustrating to see such a blunderbuss waste of public money.
The Government are talking about changing planning law so that developers do not need to provide affordable housing in developments smaller than 50 homes. Well, most developments in communities such as mine are smaller than 50 homes, so there will be a carte blanche for developers never to build another affordable home in the lakes and the dales, or in communities not dissimilar to yours, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I gave the Government an opportunity in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee, which they refused to take, to give themselves and planning authorities the power, in extreme circumstances—those of us living in national parks absolutely are in extreme circumstances—to say that only affordable housing can be built in new developments. Even under existing rules, developers wriggle out of their affordability requirements and obligations by using viability assessments. They go to the development site and say, “I found a few more rocks than I was expecting. I therefore cannot afford even the 35% affordable homes that we were going to build.” Again “affordable” has a rather broad definition.
The Government could be doing a whole range of things with both new stock and existing stock. Why will they not accept the proposal I made in this place and in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee, and will be making again, to change planning law so that second homes and holiday lets become separate categories of planning use? We could then keep a lid on the number of second homes and holiday lets in communities like mine.
It is very hard to support a proposal that is the sole straggling survivor of a disastrous mini-Budget when one suspects that the only reason it has survived is because the people hurt by it are living in communities that the Government think they can take for granted. Well, they cannot and must not be allowed to take them for granted. I am sure we will see a revised fiscal programme from the Government in the next few days, so we wait to see what it contains. I do not understand why they are clinging on to this proposal, which will do such little good even for those it helps and such harm to those it harms, when they have the chance to think again. I strongly urge them to do just that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to the wind-ups. I call the shadow Minister, Tulip Siddiq.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for his speech. I agree with him wholeheartedly that very few people will benefit from this Bill, which does not seem to be the best use of public money.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on his typically powerful speech about the problems of overcrowding and homelessness in his constituency, and about the impact on young people who are struggling to get a foot on the housing ladder. I am sure that the constituents he met will be grateful that he has aired their concerns on the Floor of the House.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) made clear, Labour does not oppose the principle of additional support for homeowners and buyers. Indeed, I have seen at first hand in my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn how the link between wages and house prices has completely broken down in recent years. It has become increasingly hard for many of my constituents to move up the housing ladder, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington pointed out. As a result, home ownership has gone down dramatically in my constituency since 2010, with private renters now accounting for 30% of the population in Hampstead and Kilburn. Across London, average private rents have risen by over an astonishing £4,500 a year compared with the position in 2010, which is miles ahead of my constituents’ average wage growth. As we have heard today, this problem is not limited to London and the south-east; 12 years of this Government has created a dysfunctional housing market in every part of the country. Tragically, after what was already 12 difficult years for first-time buyers, the Conservatives’ reckless approach to the economy has now made things even tougher for young families looking to buy their first home, and for working people struggling with their mortgage payments.
After the Government’s mini-Budget crashed the economy, 40% of mortgage deals were withdrawn from the market and mortgage rates in fixed two-year deals rose to an average of more than 6%. It is important not to forget the real-world consequences of the decisions made in this House: people looking to refinance a two-year fixed mortgage will now be paying £580 more per month, on average. That is an astonishing amount of money. For families already struggling with the worst cost of living crisis in a generation, an additional £580 a month in living costs could be crippling.
I hope the Government are taking note of the figures I am talking about, because they are not just figures; they are about real-life people who are struggling to make ends meet. Indeed, Oxford Economics estimates that if interest rates remain at the levels currently being offered, thousands of families could be facing negative equity and mortgage arrears. The Bank of England has forecast that the number of households struggling with their mortgage rates will hit a record high next year.
What is the Government’s response to the chaos they have caused in the housing market? It is even more uncertainty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North said, the Government’s last-minute decision only to give the Bill its Second Reading today sends a message to the housing market that Treasury Ministers are once again preparing for a U-turn. I would be interested to hear from the Minister today whether he believes that this time next week a stamp duty cut will still be Government policy, or whether the Government will once again follow Labour’s advice and drop this ill-thought-out proposal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North was completely right to point out that this plan will do little to help people take their first important step on to the housing ladder and that it is just another Government handout for wealthy landlords and second home owners. Labour is the true party of home ownership, which is why we have committed to a target of 70% home ownership across the UK. We will achieve that by looking at reform of the planning system to increase house building. Because if the Government keep inflating demand without increasing supply, house prices will only rise.
Our approach will mean giving first-time buyers first dibs on newly built homes and an end to buy-to-let landlords and second home owners getting in first. We will provide additional help for first-time buyers though our mortgage guarantee scheme and introduce a higher stamp duty for foreign buyers, to prevent overseas investors from buying up property and pricing out British households. Finally, we will review planning regulations so that speculators cannot prevent communities from getting shovels in the ground and building the homes they need to thrive.
If this Government were serious about support for first-time buyers, those are the sensible and costed policies they should also adopt for themselves. But this Government are not serious about home ownership and, as we have seen in recent weeks, not serious about fiscal discipline. After the damage that the Conservatives have caused to our economy with their disastrous mini-Budget, the country simply cannot afford a £1.5 billion handout to rich second home owners and buy-to-let landlords. That is why I want to echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North that it would not be fiscally right or responsible to support this stamp duty cut today, because not only are we the party of home ownership; we are also concerned about economic competence and fiscal responsibility.
Our proposals to support first-time buyers are fully funded, whereas the Government have refused even to publish the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts for their plans. Our proposals will help first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder, whereas the Government’s proposals will help only the rich. Our economic plan would provide stability and security, whereas the Government offer only economic incompetence and uncertainty. The Minister was worried that we were using up our big hits for this debate. He does not need to worry, because we are saving our big hits for the election campaign, which we hope will be very soon.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Richard Fuller)
I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. At its start, my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury set out the critical importance of the Bill and the Government’s cut to stamp duty land tax. The Bill is important to home movers and to first-time buyers; it is important for jobs and businesses connected to the property industry; and it is important for our economic growth. Stamp duty land tax at high levels can reduce a household’s willingness to move. This tax cut will enable more people to move home each year, which will, in turn, boost economic growth through the businesses and jobs the property industry supports.
The Labour Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), made points about the cost of mortgages due to recent economic uncertainty and interest rate rises. I just point out to him that interest rates and mortgage rates have been rising since last autumn in response to global trends, including Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the UK is not immune to these trends. Crucially, interest rates are not solely rising in the UK; the US Federal Reserve has been raising its base rate since March 2022.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I just want to be clear: how sure is the Minister that the new Prime Minister is not going to overturn this stamp duty stuff?
Richard Fuller
I am more sure of that than I am that I will be in my position tomorrow. This is a serious debate and an important point about mortgage rates has been made. I am just trying to point out the two issues: rates have been rising since autumn; and this is a global change in interest rates.
Our stamp duty cuts will help the situation by reducing the up-front costs of moving. This Bill will save a family moving into an average home in England £2,500. As the Exchequer Secretary mentioned, we are returning money that can be spent to help cover moving costs, improvements, new furniture or appliances.
The Opposition spokesman asked questions about the processing of the Bill, but he missed the fact, of course, that the stamp duty change is already in effect and the Government are continuing with the legislation. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made some good points about house building. I just point out to him that in 2019-20 almost 243,000 net additional dwellings were delivered, which was the highest amount in nearly 20 years; and that at the spending review 2020-21 the Government confirmed £11.5 billion of funding for the affordable homes programme from 2021-22, which is the largest cash investment in affordable housing for a decade and is providing up to 180,000 new homes across England.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) repeated the points he made earlier about issues to do with purchasing additional property. I just repeat that the Government’s stamp duty cut will ensure that about 43% of purchases each year will pay no SDLT whatever and that none of those will be purchases of second homes or buy to lets.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), in closing for the Opposition, said that the Government somehow seem to be encouraging foreign buyers and she talked about introducing a charge for foreign buyers. I just remind her that there is already a 2% charge for non-residents on SDLT.
Let me conclude by reminding this House of what this Bill is all about. It will mean that about 43% of transactions—
John McDonnell
Will the Minister look at the issue of the 100% offset that incorporated landlords now have against profits?
Richard Fuller
Of course I am happy to look at all suggestions, including the one the right hon. Gentleman has made.
This measure will mean that around 43% of transactions each year pay no stamp duty whatever, which will help to support the housing market. I say to both Opposition spokesmen—the hon. Members for Ealing North and for Hampstead and Kilburn—that as result of this measure first-time buyers in their constituencies who would not have qualified for zero stamp duty will now qualify, and Labour will today be voting against that. I would also say to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Chancellor, who are not in their places, that the average mover buying the average house in their constituencies would not have qualified for zero-rate stamp duty land tax before this measure, and Labour will again be voting against that tax cut today.
This measure will boost labour mobility, support hundreds of thousands of jobs and businesses, increase transactions to boost the property industry, and continue the Government’s record of supporting people, including younger people, into home ownership. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Business Without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 to 11 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Sector Information
That the draft Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 18 July, be approved.
Disclosure of Information
That the draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 15 July, be approved.
Merchant Shipping
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Additional Safety Measures for Bulk Carriers) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 21 June, be approved.
Merchant Shipping
That the draft Merchant Shipping (High Speed Craft) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 4 July, be approved.
Terms and Conditions of Employment
That the draft Exclusivity Terms for Zero Hours Workers (Unenforceability and Redress) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 6 July, be approved.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Alterations to the Search Powers Code for England and Wales and Scotland) Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 18 July, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Doncaster Sheffield Airport
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
On 13 July this year, Peel shocked my constituency with the announcement of the potential closure of Doncaster Sheffield Airport. This is the reason for the debate. Let me tell the House the story. I shall start with the place, then the stakeholders, how we got here, where we are now, questions for this House, and, finally, one last glimmer of hope.
Doncaster Sheffield Airport was originally RAF Finninglay. I remember going there as a very young boy. I was in the back of a Ford Escort, sat between two older brothers, with my legs sticking to black vinyl seats. It was not a pleasant journey, but, oh, what I saw when I got there: I saw Concorde for the first time, the Red Arrows, Harrier Jump Jets lifting vertically from the ground and then bowing in front of us before roaring off into the distance, and I heard the deafening sound of the Vulcan—what wonderful memories.
Sadly, Finninglay closed in 1996, but, to the joy of the people of Doncaster and beyond, the airport reopened in 2005 as Doncaster Sheffield Robin Hood Airport—a silly name, but that is for another day. I was fortunate to fly from there the second day after it opened. It was a wonderful place, and Members can see why it is now so dear to me and my constituents.
I have briefly talked about the place. I want now to talk about the stakeholders. We have the employees who are to lose their jobs, the businesses that will no doubt have to move, and the public who love our airport. We have Peel, the landowners and operators of Doncaster Sheffield Airport, the combined authority and its elected mayors, past and present, Doncaster Council and its mayor, central Government and me.
Let us talk about the people first. The airport has won many awards. It is a great building in a great place with a great car park, but it is the people who make it. The friends of Doncaster Sheffield Airport, the staff of DSA, the contractors who make it all work, and the firefighters and security who keep all safe. Then there are the businesses on site and in the hangars nearby: 2Excel and the Yorkshire Aero Club to name just a couple; Tui and its staff; and the public from across the region. All of these have been amazing and have kept me going through their continued work to keep the airport open in tough times. Tens of thousands of people have signed petitions—a Facebook page of 15,000 people. They are great people, all wanting to save the airport. To all of them, I say thank you.
Now let me talk of the two key players: Peel and the combined authority. Peel is a huge landowner across our country. Board members include: John Whittaker; Steve Underwood; and Robert Hough. Peel owned Sheffield Airport. It closed that and built houses on it. It also owned Teesside Airport, and would no doubt have closed it had it not been saved by Mayor Ben Houchen. Peel has a precedent for doing that.
Oliver Coppard is Mayor of our combined authority and has been in position since May this year. Before this, it was the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). Oliver has devolved powers and moneys. Let me explain what that means. When people are asked whether they want more powers locally, they will say yes every time—why would they not? And that is what has happened here.
In 2018, under the leadership of the hon. Member for Barnsley Central, South Yorkshire became a combined authority with an elected Mayor. That means that powers move from central Government—this place—to the combined authority now led by Oliver. Our Mayor has powers over economic growth, education, infrastructure and transport. He also has a substantial amount of money that he can use to drive growth. This is gainshare money and is set out as £30 million a year for 30 years— a total of £900 million. He can borrow against this, too. Peel and our Mayor are the key players.
Doncaster Council is the local authority in which the airport sits. It has compulsory purchase powers and obviously deals with planning. The council is led by an elected Mayor, too.
Where do the Government sit? If these powers are devolved, there are only so many levers that they can use. The use of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 has been raised by Members. I, too, have written to the Secretary of State on this issue. The Act states that if there is a disruption to a service that could cause potential loss or injury to human life, the Act could be used. Why is this so relevant at Doncaster Sheffield Airport? For those who do not know, our airport has companies on site that offer coastguard and oil spill services for central Government. We also have the National Police Air Service operating from a specialist-built facility—good people doing good things across our nation.
When I read about the Civil Contingencies Act, I too believed it was a way forward. Sadly, at least at present, it appears not to be. I spoke to the company that offers those services and, although there may be disruption to its business operation, it can still offer the services. Is that argument dead? Maybe not, but it does not appear to be as fruitful as first thought. Perhaps the Minister can advise us.
So what can the Government do? They can use the weight of their office and the Department to press for combined authorities and companies to do the right thing. I thank Baroness Vere and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) for their help and support. As the Prime Minister at the time said, we must do all we can to protect DSA, and I believe they have done much. Some may wish they could do more, and so do I—but that, I am afraid, is devolution. For them to do more, we would need to return powers to Government. Maybe that is the real answer.
Finally, there is me, a Back-Bench MP. Let me tell the House what I have done. Well, no, let us just say: much. This debate is not about me. It is a debate about saving Doncaster Sheffield Airport, and any other regional airport in the future. We have spoken of the site and we have spoken of the stakeholders. The question is how we got here.
It must be said that, as much as Peel has annoyed me, more than most over the past three months, it has at least put its money where its mouth is in the past. Many people believe that the Great Yorkshire Way, a wonderful road connecting the M18 directly to Doncaster Sheffield Airport, was paid for by the taxpayer, but no—much of the £60 million project was private investment, £11 million of it from Peel itself. As much as I would like to haul Peel over the coals at this stage, I cannot.
The sad fact is that Peel sought financial support from the combined authority for approximately three years, in the form of an equity share worth £20 million and then, reluctantly, in the form of a loan. For three years, I have been informed, Peel was led a merry dance by the combined authority, which provided a catalogue of excuses and delays without clear process. I have been led to believe that first, it claimed there was no money, despite devolution; secondly, it failed to grasp state aid issues and made no effort to lobby on them and finally, environmental concerns were given as the reason why the £20 million loan was not even put to the leaders of the combined authority in March this year.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
We are all here to support the hon. Gentleman and we want to engage in a constructive debate, but I must say that what he has been told is not the case. If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will clearly articulate what the mayoral combined authority did for Doncaster Sheffield Airport and to support Peel over the period when I was the Mayor. I completely understand why the hon. Gentleman makes that point, but I can assure him, as I can assure all hon. Members, that in the period from 2018 to the point of the mayoral election we worked incredibly hard to support Peel and to work with the airport. If I get the chance later on I will be very clear about precisely what we did.
Nick Fletcher
I will come on to that, because I want a public inquiry to get to the truth of this matter, but I will cover that in my speech.
The combined authority appears never to have properly embraced Doncaster Sheffield Airport as its own airport, and to have badly underestimated the economic loss to the region. It was complacent with Peel and favoured investment closer to its own patch in Sheffield.
This region has failed to behave sensibly under devolution, continuing to act in silos rather than devising and implementing a cohesive economic plan. The economic loss could be simply catastrophic. I asked Peel whether, if the £20 million had been made available this April, we would be in this position. Peel said no. Let me just leave that there for the House: if the £20 million had been made available, Doncaster Sheffield Airport would not be closing. The combined authority may disagree, but the fact remains that the £20 million never appeared and Peel has said it is the fault of the combined authority. That is why I want a public inquiry. If that is not the truth, then what is? A public inquiry will find out.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. In April 2022, DSA indicated that it did not wish to continue developing the loan proposal at that time. It is hard not to conclude that what he has been told, although I think he is presenting it in good faith, is not the case.
May I put one point to the hon. Gentleman? He has raised concerns about devolution, both today and previously, referring to the powers and the money vested in the Mayor. For the sake of clarity, it would be helpful if he could say precisely what powers—he has mentioned the gain share—and precisely what money he thinks the current South Yorkshire Mayor should be deploying in support of Doncaster Sheffield airport. What powers and what money?
Nick Fletcher
Maybe we need to sit down with the Mayor of Teesside and see how he worked it out, because I have been told that he has exactly the same powers as Mayor Oliver Coppard and that Mayor Oliver Coppard has twice as much money as he does, yet he has bought an airport and he is moving forward with it.
Regarding the fact that DSA said it did not want the loan in April, this is why I want a public inquiry. I have been very careful about what I am saying, although I know I can say what I choose in this House, because I am telling the hon. Member what I have been led to believe. I want a public inquiry so that the people of Doncaster and South Yorkshire can get to the bottom of this question. If what I am saying is true, it is a disgrace.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman was just asked a direct question. It does not need a public inquiry to work out what the factual position is. Will he say very clearly what powers he thinks the Mayor has to go in and intervene with Peel, which clearly does not want to engage and does not want to sell?
Nick Fletcher
Exactly the same again: Peel did not want to sell to Ben Houchen, but it did sell to Ben Houchen. It is no good sitting there and saying it did not—it did. Oliver Coppard has twice the money and exactly the same powers, and his job is economic growth for the area. Ben Houchen bought an airport off Peel that Peel never necessarily wanted to sell.
I will make some progress. The next question is where we are now. The combined authority failed to set up a mayoral development corporation and Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council failed to start a compulsory purchase order. They both say they cannot, but it is the threat that counts in a business deal. That is why I have championed the Civil Contingencies Act; it may not be viable, but it is the threat that counts.
I have tried to work collegially on this and, to be fair, in week 10, on the Friday before the announcement was to be made, the combined authority came up with a deal to cover Peel’s losses for 13 months. Although that is not a Ben Houchen deal, at least it was something. Peel would not lose any money, it would get the local council, the combined authority and the Government on-side, and it would get me off its back. If, 13 months from now, no buyer had been found and the airport was still making a loss, at least Peel would have tried; local jobs would have been saved during a cost of living crisis, the airport would have supported the local economy through this period and businesses on site would have had time to get their contingency plans in good shape. But no—Peel still says no.
There is something Peel is not telling me, and again, a public inquiry is needed. Why would Peel want to annoy local and central Government, its customers, its staff, the local people and me, when it could have its losses covered, and still say no? There is something Peel is not telling me, so a public inquiry is needed.
In the last week of the initial six-week consultation, the combined authority’s big idea was to put the airport on the market. These are the people in charge of economic growth for South Yorkshire. Five weeks after I, a Back-Bench MP, had written to Virgin Atlantic, British Airways, Ryanair and numerous other airlines, our devolved authority in charge of economic growth went to the market.
I really cannot get my breath, but it is day 45 of this saga, and the combined authority is only just going to the market with our airport. I have tried to be collegial throughout my time dealing with this matter, to show a united front against Peel, but it has been harder than anyone can imagine—not being allowed to join meetings and, when I am, having to sit and listen every to reason why things cannot be done rather than reasons why they can.
Finally, we have three consortia around the table with Peel. Those talks went on through last week, but as yet I have heard no more. There is little time; people are about to lose their jobs. I have to ask whether we would have stood a better chance if the combined authority had gone to the market in week one instead of week five. I am sure we would.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Thank you for being so generous with your time. As a fellow South Yorkshire MP, can I just say how grateful I am—I know that many of us in the House are—for the tireless work that you have done championing the airport?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady must say, “The work he has done.”
Miriam Cates
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend has done, on behalf of the people of South Yorkshire, trying to rescue the airport. Does he believe that the local authorities and the combined authority have underestimated its economic and social value? If so, why does he think that is?
Nick Fletcher
Yes, massively. The important word in “combined authority” is “combined”—it is Doncaster, Rotherham, Barnsley and Sheffield coming together. I do not think the combined authority leaders, past and present, have told the leaders of those councils how important the airport is for the growth of the entire area and beyond. They have not sold it. They should have sold it; if they had, we would not be losing our airport. As I said, we need a public inquiry to find out the reasons for that, but I am afraid the silo working that I spoke about earlier is typical of Labour councils up and down the country.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. He said a moment ago that the current Mayor has twice the money that Mayor Ben Houchen has in Tees Valley. I would be grateful to hear the facts that underpin that, and I am sure the House would be most illuminated, because that is not my understanding. Let me also return to the crucial point about powers. What powers does the hon. Member think are invested in the Mayor that he is not using?
Nick Fletcher
On the money, the South Yorkshire Mayor has £30 million per year for 30 years. That is £900 million. Ben Houchen, the Mayor for Teesside, has £15 million a year for 30 years. That is £450 million. I believe we are two years behind where we should be because Doncaster and Barnsley councils wanted to create a Yorkshire-wide mayoralty. Nevertheless, we are where we are.
With regard to powers, I say again that we have powers to set up mayoral development areas, we have compulsory purchase powers, we have community asset powers—we have all these different levers but, unfortunately, none of them has been used.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I am intrigued by those powers, and I think where the power lies is the nub of the issue. We have all seen the great success of Mayor Ben Houchen in Tees Valley, but why is that not happening in South Yorkshire? My hon. Friend talks about compulsory purchase powers. Is he saying that if the Mayor wanted to, he could—perhaps with Doncaster Council—buy the airport to save it, similarly to what Ben Houchen did, but that he has chosen not to do so?
Nick Fletcher
The compulsory purchase powers sit with the local authority, and it could have used them. The argument will be that, to use compulsory purchase powers, it is necessary to go through a series of phases first: compulsory purchase has to be the last resort. I understand that, but the threat of its use would have made Peel sit down at the table far sooner, and we may have stood a chance of saving the airport. Using compulsory purchase orders when the airport has closed and been asset-stripped by its owners is not going to help anyone. We are where we are. As I said a moment ago, we have consortia around the table. Let us hope that things change in the next few days.
I could speak for another hour, but I know my time is limited. I want to leave the House with three questions. First, what can this place do to stop this happening again? Should we make all airports community assets? Should any sale or closure of an airport have to be agreed by the local Mayor or the Secretary of State? Should any operator have to give a notice period of, say, two to five years? I do not know, but something must be done.
Secondly, before any more devolution can take place, can it please be explained properly to the electorate what that means? I believe it has been a disaster for South Yorkshire so far. People really need to know what they are signing up for and voting for.
Thirdly, can we have a public inquiry? I need the people of Doncaster to know what has happened. It is important. They really need to know where to put their cross the next time they vote.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Before he winds up his excellent speech, in which he has clearly laid out the issues, the work that he has been doing to solve them, and some solutions, may I just say that my West Yorkshire constituents have lobbied me too? This is a regional airport that they use, so on their behalf I say to my hon. Friend, “More power to your elbow.” I congratulate him on everything that he has been doing to campaign for this important regional airport.
Nick Fletcher
I thank my hon. Friend. That just proves that the airport is used by people from all across the north of England and is such a fantastic asset.
Peel has been stubborn—I believe desperately so—and its board, mainly John Whittaker and Robert Hough, will have to live with what it is trying to do and what its legacy will be. I am told that John Whittaker is a good man, and he can stop this at the click of his fingers. The question is, will he do the right thing? I hope so.
However, Peel is a business, and businesses make profit. Although I do not believe that greed is good, Peel is doing what businesses are supposed to do: making money. Sadly, I believe our elected Mayors have not done what they are supposed to do. They have been left wanting—absent at first, then slow and, in the words of local business leaders, chaotic. They have shown no vision and are championing our airport only now, when it is probably too late.
Just look at the difference between our Mayor’s social media account and Ben Houchen’s. Our South Yorkshire Mayor is tweeting childish memes when the people he represents—the people who voted for him—are losing their jobs and South Yorkshire is losing its future, while Ben Houchen’s social media is littered with success stories of investment, jobs and giving the next generation an inspiring future.
If we lose our airport, Peel will need to be held accountable, but the combined authority should be dissolved. It is not working, and it is not working for Doncaster. Our combined authority Mayor is buying trams for Sheffield while Doncaster gets second-hand buses and a closed airport. It is simply not good enough. And where is our Doncaster Mayor? Nowhere to be seen.
Alexander Stafford
If, as is reported, Peel is planning to sell the site or get rid of it for houses to be built on it, who exactly would benefit from the council tax on those houses? Would the South Yorkshire Mayor and Doncaster Council get money directly from the rate payers who bought those houses? Does my hon. Friend think there is anything weird about that way of doing things?
Nick Fletcher
My hon. Friend makes his point; as I say, I hope that those sorts of things will come out as part of the public inquiry.
I have said throughout our campaign that we must keep the faith. I am so saddened. I know that we cannot keep an airport open because people are fond of it, but Doncaster people really are fond of the airport, and I am too. I therefore want to try to end on a note of optimism that we still have a glimmer of hope. The consortia and Peel are still in the room and the combined authority offer is still on the table. I want them to know that if they save our airport, I will be their champion, and so will the good people of Doncaster.
It is a great airport and I know that, with the right owner and the right support, it would be viable. I therefore ask Peel one last time to do the right thing, reverse this ridiculous decision, accept the combined authority’s offer, give the sale the time it needs and let us turn Doncaster into the aerotropolis its founder, John Whittaker, once dreamed of.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I speak as the constituency Member for Doncaster North. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing the debate and for his efforts to help save the airport, which he has talked about. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton), the Mayors of Doncaster and South Yorkshire and their teams, and my colleagues, including our shadow Transport Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). I also mention Mark Chadwick of the Save Doncaster Sheffield Airport Facebook page, who has run a brilliant campaign, as the hon. Member for Don Valley said, and the local trade unions, which organised a rally on Saturday.
It is one minute to midnight as far as the airport is concerned. We in this House owe it to the workers who are at risk of losing their jobs, and to the whole community, to work together and do absolutely everything we can in the days that we have left; not to point fingers or play the blame game, but to try to keep the airport open. That is the focus of my remarks. On Saturday, I heard from people who have worked at the airport since it opened in 2005 and I heard the uncertainty, anguish and sense of pessimism that they felt. They expect us in this House to leave no stone unturned in seeking to keep the airport open.
Let us get the position clear: responsibility for this decision lies with Peel. Peel has taken the decision. It has refused the offer of a 13-month subsidy from the South Yorkshire Mayor to cover its losses and keep the airport open while a buyer is found. Indeed, looking at the situation, one can only reach the conclusion that it is determined not to sell because it wants to use the land for other purposes. The problem with the idea that the airport should somehow be purchased by the South Yorkshire Mayor has a flaw at its heart: Peel is refusing to sell. The issue of the compulsory purchase order is important, but it would take at least a year to go through that process.
Nick Fletcher
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever done a business deal—I really do not know—but what we do is put on as much pressure as possible and use every lever from day one. That way, when we have the people in the room, they are thinking, “Is this going to happen?” I have kept quiet all the way through and have not said what I have wanted to say, because I wanted to show a united front with Opposition Members and the Mayor, but it has been like watching child’s play in front of my eyes. We should use every lever we have, pile on the pressure and hope that Peel will sit down and talk to us. I honestly believe that if I had not started this campaign on day one, the issue would have been swept under the carpet, because nobody on the Opposition side of the House wanted it.
Edward Miliband
When the hon. Gentleman looks back at this debate, I honestly do not think that he will think that kind of partisanship does him any favours. Of course the council has talked about doing a CPO and has discussed it with him, but it has tried to explain the time that would take.
Our focus needs to be on Peel. We need to send a united message from this House that it can still do the right thing, because there are credible bidders. I urge it to accept the generous offer of the South Yorkshire Mayor as it considers those bids from credible buyers. If it does not do that, its name will be mud in the city and region forever more, and deservedly so.
I also appeal to the Government through the Minister, although I know it is not her area of responsibility; she already answered an urgent question on it earlier. I will explain the background to the legal advice that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central and I commissioned around the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. We commissioned that because of the national dimension of the services run from the airport, which include the National Air Police Service, search and rescue, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the airport fire service, oil spill dispersant work and military activity. They are national activities, which is why we think the Civil Contingencies Act is engaged. The short notice given to these services, which have been told to cease operations by 18 November, also gives them little time to prepare and find alternatives.
I will briefly turn to the legal advice of Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who was a co-sponsor of the Act. He is not a lawyer who we found on the street; he was the Lord Chancellor and was responsible for co-piloting the legislation through the House. We have made the legal advice available, and we can obviously make it available to Members here if they have not seen it. He says:
“It is my opinion that under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, the Transport Secretary”—
or, by the way, any Government Minister—
“has clear legal authority to intervene to prevent the closure of Doncaster airport...due to the disruption of essential services run from the airport”.
He goes on, and this is the key point:
“The shortness of the period before closure means for many, if not all, of these services an interruption of their life-saving services, and for some of them potentially a permanent reduction in quality. No doubt some of them will find alternative bases. How good they are and when remains to be seen. In this truncated timetable, in breach of the lease, there is the potential for disruption to these life-saving services.”
For those familiar with the Act, Lord Falconer is applying the test in section 1, which defines an emergency as an event or situation that
“involves, causes or may cause…loss of human life,…human illness or injury,…damage to property,…disruption of facilities for transport, or…disruption of services relating to health.”
He also says:
“There is no doubt that the disruption or interruption of the services described above constitute an event or situation which ‘causes or may cause’ any one of the circumstances described above.”
Nick Fletcher
I want this to work—the Civil Contingencies Act to work—and I have spoken at length with the people offering such services, but they have said there will be no disruption to their services. I actually asked them, but it is not something I want to raise on the Floor of the House because we are again showing our cards to Peel.
The right hon. Member keeps on pressing this point, but I have been through it. I wrote to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State has written back to me and said that she cannot use the Act. This is a Labour peer passing advice to a Labour Member of Parliament, but I still backed it and I still went to the Secretary of State. I have tried it, and I think this is taking us away from the argument that we are here because a £20 million loan never appeared, and that is why we are losing our airport. We have the consortia and Peel around the table, and what we now need to do is press as hard as we can for them to make the right decision. Going on about the Civil Contingencies Act, which we have gone through many times, is not helping.
Edward Miliband
I say to the hon. Gentleman, because he keeps wanting to play the blame game, that there will be time to do so. If we do not succeed, there will be time for him to do all the finger pointing, and for him to put this on his election leaflet and try to blame the Labour party, but do not do it now. Do not do that while we are trying to save the airport. If he wants to do that, let him do that, but do not do it now. Let us work together to try to save the airport.
Would it require boldness and commitment to use the Civil Contingencies Act? Yes, it would. I have to say that the hon. Gentleman says he has clear advice from Government, but the Secretary of State for Transport will not even meet me. I have been in this House for 17 years, and I have never had the experience of a Secretary of State refusing even to meet me, or indeed other Members of Parliament or the South Yorkshire Mayor, over an issue as important as this.
The Government’s position has been that they will do everything they can to save the airport. Lord Falconer is happy to make himself available. Let us get around the table with the Secretary of State. Maybe her advice will be that there is nothing she can do, but why not have the conversation? There is nothing to fear from the conversation. It is almost as though the Government think that somehow they will be culpable if they have such a meeting and engage. They will not be culpable if they have the meeting and engage; they will be culpable if they do not have the meeting and do not engage, and I am afraid that is what they are doing.
I am going to end my remarks, because other Members want to speak, by appealing to the Minister—I know her from another life when she was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the COP26 President, which she did very well and we had a good relationship—that courtesy and commitment demand that we get around the table with the South Yorkshire Mayor and with Members of Parliament to leave no stone unturned. Maybe we will not succeed, but let us try to work together on this. Time is incredibly short, and we owe it to all the workers and to the community to fight all the way until our options have run out. Responsibility lies with Peel, and I appeal to Peel to do the right thing, but I also appeal to the Government to get around the table with us and see whether there is a way forward.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing this important debate and for his tireless work over the past 105 days to save our airport. And it really is our airport across South Yorkshire, with Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham, Sheffield—we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), near Huddersfield and West Yorkshire, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) is here to show support and how important the airport is for Nottinghamshire. The airport is a community asset and something close to our hearts. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley mentioned Concorde and the Vulcan, and it is an iconic and important part of our history and culture.
This is also about jobs, and the economic and social value that the airport brings to our region. There will be many things we disagree on—there already are—but we all agree on one thing: we want to save the airport and try to make it work. No one wants to play the blame game and we all, including Labour Members, want to pull levers to put on Peel the pressure that my hon. Friend for Don Valley was talking about. Let us be honest: Peel is ultimately at fault, as we have seen in Sheffield, Manchester and the Tees Valley, where it wants to close airports and build housing or industrial estates in order to get the rent. Let us be honest about what it is trying to do, and say that we as elected Members want to try to stop it doing that.
In some places Peel has been successful, as we have seen in Sheffield, but in other places it has not been. That is crucial, it is not a partisan point, and we should look at a case study. I was a geographer at school, and we would write case studies and give an example of something. We have the case study of Teesside and the Mayor of Tees Valley, when Peel was in a pretty similar situation—obviously we have more money in South Yorkshire than they do there—and Peel wanted to sell the land for its airport and build houses and an industrial park.
I looked intensely at why Ben Houchen has been so successful. I do not believe it is just because he said, “I want to save an airport,” which he clearly did and has done. That was not his game. His game was, “I want to make the Tees Valley a better place, with better jobs, a better community and better society, and the airport is part of that.” We do not have the same approach. We talk too much about the airport in isolation—of course an airport is important—but we should be talking about how the airport in South Yorkshire is integral to the prosperity of South Yorkshire, and how it fits in with wider plans, whether those are freeports, industrial zones, or bus franchising—Members will know I am a big advocate of that. How does the airport fit in with the wider communication plan? We cannot see the airport in isolation, because ultimately that might fail. We need to see how it combines the whole of our region together.
Mr Betts
I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is asking for. He must accept that the airport in Teesside is costing an awful lot of public money. Presumably he is happy for the Mayor of South Yorkshire, if Peel agreed, to put in just as much money, perhaps £20 million out of the £30 million a year. He then argues for franchising. Does he accept that choices have to be made? The Government have not given the Mayor an unlimited budget. Presumably he wants everything to be spent out of that £30 million, when that clearly is not possible. Is he saying we should give Peel an open cheque and it can have what it wants? That is what he seems to be saying.
Alexander Stafford
The hon. Gentleman has brought my speech on a bit, because what I am asking for is vision. I am asking the South Yorkshire Mayor for a vision of South Yorkshire. I want to know where South Yorkshire will be in five, 10 or 20 years’ time, and what my children will experience when they grow up in South Yorkshire. I do not want them to have bus franchising here or an airport there. I want to hear,
“South Yorkshire is going to be a better place, and this is how we’re getting there.”
We are talking about money and bus franchising, but ultimately we need that to feed into a wider vision. The whole point of the South Yorkshire Mayor, or any Mayor—I still have great reservations about the mayoralty, because I do not see that vision coming.
We speak about being unpartisan, and I will pay credit to what happened in Manchester, as well as in Tees Valley and the west midlands, where the Mayors have visions of what they want their regions to look like. I do not know what vision our Mayor has for our region. He probably wants to save the airport, and we have talked about bus franchising, but that is not a vision. In order for the airport to work, it needs to be part of a wider vision of prosperity. It is about how Sheffield is linked to Doncaster, and from Barnsley down to Rotherham, and how each part of it fits that vision. When the Mayor has set out the vision—I hope that it will be a good vision—he should use the levers of power available to him to make it a reality. He should say to the people of South Yorkshire, “I have my vision and this is where the airport fits into it. These are the levers—the powers and the £900 million given to me by the Government—that I will use to make that vision happen.” He may or may not say, “We need to save the airport,” but I want to see how that fits into the vision and how it all goes together.
We have already heard about the Civil Contingencies Act, the £20 million loan and lots of things. That is too piecemeal. The failure here is not necessarily the failure of the airport. The failure is of vision and of the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority. The success in the Tees Valley is because its Mayor has a vision, knows what he wants to do and is combining those. We do not have that in South Yorkshire. That is the ultimate failure.
Dan Jarvis
I am just checking that the hon. Member knows that there is a strategic economic plan. Included in that is a clear articulation of the importance of the airport. Has he read it?
Alexander Stafford
I am talking about the current Mayor. Of course, I have read the plan. We can all see where the airport fits into it, but that is not how it links together. It is too piecemeal. We may disagree on whether that plan is correct—I disagree with it—but it is too piecemeal. We need an overarching vision for how that works together with the industrial zones and the freeport.
I commend once again my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley on his cross-party way of working. He is a far nicer gentleman than me when it comes to working cross-party.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentions cross-party working. That is similar to what my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) is trying to achieve, working across South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire on the Penistone line—another transport-related project—and all the MPs and the Mayors are fully in agreement on it. Does he agree that it is important that we try to work together on a cross-party basis?
Alexander Stafford
Of course, I agree. It is incredibly important that we work cross-party. That is why I have been saddened by some of the debate as well as by the urgent question earlier. We are not working cross-party. There are too many red herrings being thrown about—we have heard about civil contingencies and this law and this stuff—without working together. We need to unite to pull all those levers to save our airports. We should look at all options, including compulsory purchase if necessary. We have dealt with the situation before in Tees Valley, where we beat Peel. The only difference now is that we have a different Mayor in charge. That is the only conclusion that I can come to.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on securing this important debate. Thousands of jobs are dependent on Doncaster Sheffield airport, and the stark reality is that there are only days left to save it. Conservative Members have made a number of assertions that the Mayor has the powers to step in, but no one has been able to explain what those powers are. Those cited would take years to exercise.
While Peel is not willingly offering the airport for sale, the reality is that the South Yorkshire Mayor has made Peel Group an offer of public money to keep the airport running until next October and has helped to find three potential investors interested in purchasing the site and keeping the airport operational. Discussions are ongoing between the Peel Group and potential investors. They are non-political, and we hope for a positive outcome, but the Peel Group still refuses to confirm whether it is willing to suspend closure and whether it is even in a position to sell Doncaster Sheffield Airport Ltd. Indeed, if Peel is refusing to sell the airport, the Civil Contingencies Act remains the only way to save it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) outlined.
The Conservative party seems to be forgetting the assurances made by the outgoing Prime Minister in the last few weeks that the Secretary of State would address the issue immediately and protect the airport. I am really disappointed that the Transport Secretary has not turned up to the debate and that the Government still refuse to meet Opposition Members. This is a grave situation for people across South Yorkshire, including the thousands of workers whose employment relies on the airport, local businesses and, of course, all of us who rely on the emergency services stationed at the airport. It may well be that they can continue to fulfil their contractual obligations, but no doubt they will be disrupted. Has the Minister met the emergency services to discuss that? It is imperative that Ministers step up, that we work together and that Ministers use their powers to do everything they can to save Doncaster Sheffield airport.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on securing the debate and on the tireless work he has put in to try to save the airport, which I think is widely acknowledged. However, as has been observed by a number of right hon. and hon. Members tonight, we need to work together. We cannot afford for this to turn into a political row, because the stakes are too high. I think all of us recognise that Doncaster Sheffield airport is a huge economic asset for our region. South Yorkshire and the surrounding areas would be weakened and undermined if the airport were to close, so we all have an absolute responsibility to do everything we possibly can. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said, the focus has to be on Peel.
I say this with all humility, but I have a pretty comprehensive understanding of the powers that are invested in the mayoralty and the money that is available to the Mayor. For four very difficult years, I worked with local leaders and national Government to make the most of that particular arrangement. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Don Valley say that he does not think it is working for South Yorkshire. Many very, very senior members of his Government and very many Conservative Members on his side do think it is working for South Yorkshire. I worked closely with a number of Government Ministers to ensure that it did.
Dan Jarvis
Let me just make a bit of progress, then I will give way. I want to reinforce the very important point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North made about making sure that Peel does the right thing.
A very good and reasonable offer from the Mayor was put to Peel. That offer would have enabled it to continue to operate the airport for up to 13 months. That crucial 13-month period would have provided the time and space to ensure that the ongoing negotiations with the three parties that have stepped forward were given every chance to succeed. Even at this very late hour, I still hope that Peel—I hope it is watching this debate tonight—does the right thing and gets back around the table with the Mayor and the combined authority to look at whether it might be prepared to reconsider. I am happy to give way if the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene.
Nick Fletcher
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I just want to go back to the fact that he believes devolution is working for Doncaster. The city region sustainable transport settlements bid was for £570 million. Some £110 million of that was taken off the top straight away for the trams in Sheffield. The rest of the money, the £460 million, was then divvied up between Doncaster, Rotherham, Sheffield and Barnsley. Another item is the cultural money that has just come to South Yorkshire—£1 million from central Government to the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority. How much did Doncaster get? It got £38,000, or 3.8%. I just want him to confirm that devolution is working for Doncaster people, because I do not think it is.
Dan Jarvis
What I can confirm—I am, frankly, uniquely well placed to be able to confirm it—is that for the period of time I was the Mayor, I moved heaven and earth to work very closely with all local leaders to ensure that the money we had available to commit was committed in a way that was fair and equal. Frankly, I am very proud of the fact that none of the leaders were ever able to come to me to say, “You were favouring Barnsley or Sheffield or Doncaster.”
The hon. Gentleman makes a specific point about the money invested in Sheffield in Supertram. That is a very legitimate question for him to raise. I advise him to talk to colleagues on his own Government Front Bench, because it is almost always the case, as a mayoral combined authority, that you are bidding for—I hope the Minister will confirm this, because this was absolute in my experience and it was the experience of other mayors—pots of funding that are controlled by national Government. Always it is the case that there are very strict rules governing the way that money can be spent. While I was the Mayor, I moved heaven and earth. The hon. Member will remember that we had a number of good-natured constructive conversations to ensure that Doncaster got its fair share. I can look him and the House in the eye and say that Doncaster, along with Barnsley, Rotherham and Sheffield, always got its fair share.
There are issues relating to how national funding pots are structured and created. We do not really do devolution properly in this country. We do not devolve pots of money to mayoral combined authorities for them to commit based on their priorities. The money that comes from Westminster and Whitehall always has very stringent conditions attached. That is not how it should be, but that is the reality.
I was sorry to hear the hon. Member raising concerns—admittedly, that had been raised to him—about the approach from the combined authority in recent years. I categorically assure him and the House that, over the four years that I was the Mayor, we worked tirelessly to make sure that we did everything that we possibly could to invest not just in Doncaster Sheffield airport, but in GatewayEast, as he knows well, because it is in his constituency. GatewayEast is an area that has huge economic potential not only for Doncaster, but for the wider region. Throughout my tenure as the Mayor, there were numerous and significant interventions.
Let me give a flavour of those interventions so that the hon. Member might be a bit reassured. In referring to the Great Yorkshire Way, he made the point, rightly, that private investment went into funding that, but he should also understand—I hope he does—that, in March 2017, the mayoral combined authority provided £9.2 million for the construction of the Great Yorkshire Way. In March 2019, we granted a loan of £3.5 million for capital works, helping to support a key source of the revenue at Doncaster Sheffield airport. In March 2020, there was a second loan of £5 million to enhance passenger capacity. In June 2020, the MCA agreed to extend the £3.5 million loan period for the car park enhancement and defer all interest payments until 2024 to support the airport through the pandemic, which was clearly an incredibly challenging time for airports around the world.
In November 2020, discussions about a significant equity investment began. The MCA took that very seriously at the time: I appointed my then chief exec to lead on the negotiations and we appointed consultants to look very carefully at the business case. It was ultimately determined that the investment would not comply with the subsidy control rules. We sought to work around that, and that is why discussion started at that point about a £20 million loan.
Nick Fletcher
We are talking about the jewel in the crown of South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority—the one thing that can set the entirety of South Yorkshire area alight and bring investment into our area—and the hon. Gentleman said, “It has been given an £8.5 million loan in the last five years”. That is what it has had: an £8.5 million loan in five years for the jewel in the crown, for 1.8 million people’s economic growth and economic future. The Mayor has just spent £24 million, I believe, on some new trams. I am lost for words—I am sorry.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member has got his maths wrong. The first thing I said was that £9.2 million had gone into supporting infrastructure—
Dan Jarvis
No, I will not. I will make a bit of progress. I then went on to detail a series of other financial interventions that were set alongside a huge amount of activity that was going in to support the airport. Here is the critical point, which I made to the hon. Member earlier: in April 2022—bear in mind that, as he will recall, we were in purdah at that point—the Peel Group indicated that it did not wish to proceed with the work around the £20 million loan.
Dan Jarvis
No, I will not; I am going to make some further points and I will give way to the hon. Member in a moment.
The truth of the matter is—I say this with all humility—that I was there; I was in the room, did the meetings, had the conversation and directed my officers to do the work. We worked very closely with Mayor Ros Jones, who has been a tireless supporter of Doncaster Sheffield airport for many years. The truth is that we completely acknowledged the huge value that DSA added to our regional economy and, as part of the work that we were doing, underpinned by a very detailed strategic economic plan that I am not sure that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) has read, we produced a renewal action plan that provided the wider vision for the kind of economy—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
If it is about the contents of the speech, it is not a point of order.
Alexander Stafford
On a point of order, I said in my speech that I had read the plan; the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) is now saying that I have not. For the record, he cannot just say things completely contradicting something that I have said a few minutes before. It is completely disingenuous.
Madam Deputy Speaker
No—we cannot have “disingenuous”. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could say “bewildering” or something like that.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That will do. It is obvious to me that there are differences of opinion about facts and the interpretation of facts. That is why there are different sides of the House and why we have a system in which everybody gets the chance to state their opinions and facts. Let us not get heated about it.
Dan Jarvis
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The other really important point for hon. Members to understand is that, in addition to the significant financial interventions and the clear recognition of the importance of DSA as part of the economic future of South Yorkshire, we did three other really important things as well; the hon. Member for Don Valley knows about them because he and I discussed them at the time. I was always of the view that one of the greatest things we could do to support the long-term economic viability of DSA was to continue to invest in the supporting infrastructure, to make it easier for people to get to the airport. That is why my then officers, working closely with Doncaster Council, did a huge amount of work to draw together the basis of a proposal that would have put an east coast main line station at Doncaster Sheffield airport. That, I think, could have been transformative for the airport and a lot of work, done closely with Transport for the North, went into drawing together the basis of that significant infrastructure proposal.
The hon. Member for Don Valley knows where we got to with that; it was a credible proposal that went forward to national Government. Unfortunately, it was not supported by national Government. Additionally, we also looked at what we could do to better enhance intra-regional connectivity. I was very conscious that there were transport infrastructure interventions that we could have carried out that would have made it easier for local people in the South Yorkshire area to get to the airport. Again, we were not successful in drawing down money to support that.
The third point, with which the hon. Member for Don Valley is very familiar, is that we put a lot of time and investment into developing a freeport proposal for the GatewayEast site. I will let the House into a bit of a secret: not everybody in South Yorkshire was necessarily in favour of that proposal because it potentially came with a range of measures that were not universally popular. However, the decision I took, working closely with the mayoral combined authority, was that, as part of the process of supporting Doncaster Sheffield airport and making it more economically viable in the longer term, we would play the game and work closely with national Government. On that basis, I took the decision to put forward a freeport proposal for GatewayEast, adjacent to Doncaster Sheffield airport. That proposal was not successful even though the Treasury’s own analysis, I think, subsequently scored our South Yorkshire bid better than other bids that were ultimately successful.
We tried to get the east coast main line station put in, and we put forward a proposal that was unsuccessful. We did work to improve intra-regional connectivity; that was unsuccessful. Then we put forward the freeport proposal and that was unsuccessful.
Nick Fletcher
The hon. Gentleman has questioned my maths. I am very good at maths: £5 million and £3.5 million is £8.5 million—that is the loan—and £9.2 million was used for the road. Peel put in £11 million, which is £1.8 million more than the combined authority put in. That is what I am trying to say.
I am not making excuses. I am asking why, if the airport is the jewel in the crown of South Yorkshire—I am sure that those are the combined authority’s own words—it is not being supported more. I am not giving excuses. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s comments about freeports; I am trying to get an investment zone for the area now, which will hopefully be even better than a freeport. But if the combined authority is not seen to invest in its own infrastructure and its own jewel in the crown, what does that say to the Government? “Are you prepared to invest in your own?” “Well, no, we’re not.” What is the point?
We need vision, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) says, that is what has been lacking. With silo working, it has become “Sheffield is trams and Doncaster is planes.” I am afraid that that is just not good enough.
Dan Jarvis
I recommend that the hon. Gentleman spends a bit of time with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) to get a sense of the realities of local government finance. The reality is that the revenue that the Mayor has at any one time to expend is very limited. The hon. Member for Don Valley mentioned the £30 million of gainshare; there is a very strict split between capital and revenue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East made the point that there are a range of other financial commitments that the mayoral combined authority has to service. There are other infrastructural investments that have to be made. The job of the Mayor is to look at things in the round and work out what money is available and where it can best be deployed.
The hon. Member for Don Valley did not mention the sum of £20 million, which is a very significant commitment from the mayoral authority. As I have said to him previously, in April 2022, when we had gone into purdah and I was going to be Mayor for a couple more weeks, the Peel Group indicated that it did not wish to continue developing the loan proposal at that time. That was an offer in good faith that had been worked up between senior officers in the mayoral combined authority and senior officials in the Peel Group, but they took the decision that they did not want to continue those conversations. That is the reality of it.
Mr Betts
Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that parts of South Yorkshire sometimes think that the way forward is to have a row with other parts of South Yorkshire rather than working collectively, as the Manchester authorities appear able to? This is not about Doncaster’s airport versus Sheffield’s trams. Sheffield is a major city. Major European cities have light rail systems; Sheffield needs and wants a light rail system. It should not be about having one or the other or fighting over the scraps; it should be about arguing collectively for extra money for the infrastructure that we need in each of our areas. That is why Sheffield MPs are here tonight to support Doncaster Sheffield airport—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am getting confused about who is intervening on whom. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) has the Floor. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) has intervened on him. Have I just let the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) intervene on the hon. Gentleman intervening? Aargh!
Mr Betts
I am sorry if I confused you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I hope that I did not confuse anybody else at the same time. I was intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) to ask whether he agrees that it is unfortunately all too common among some people in South Yorkshire to start a blame game between the constituent parts of the authority, rather than working collectively as Sheffield Members are here to do tonight.
Dan Jarvis
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s important point. The truth of the matter is that every Member of Parliament in South Yorkshire wants Doncaster Sheffield airport to stay open. We all want that, which is why we are collectively frustrated that we have not had the opportunity to get around the table with a Minister and voice our concerns in that kind of forum. It is a good thing that we are having this debate tonight, but let us be honest: it is only a quirk of fate that we have been able to have this elongated discussion. It is only because today’s business ended sooner than normal that hon. Members have the opportunity to put their concerns on the record.
Mark Eastwood
May I correct the hon. Gentleman on one point? He has just referred to Members of Parliament in South Yorkshire, but Members of Parliament in west Yorkshire are also very concerned about this, which is why I have been supporting my hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) in their campaign. Quite a number of fingers are being pointed at the Mayor and at the Government, but it is the Peel Group on which we ought to be focusing, and what I want to ask the hon. Gentleman is this: how do we get the Peel Group to the table so that this can be discussed and subsequently resolved?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. I entirely recognise, and am grateful for, the support that has come from Members outside South Yorkshire. I know that there is strong support from Members in West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire, and indeed from further afield—from north Nottinghamshire and the east midlands.
I do not think anyone in this place does not want the airport to remain open. That is why I am expressing so much frustration. Given the importance of the asset for the region and given the overwhelming cross-party support, I honestly cannot understand why the Secretary of State does not act. I am not having a go at the Minister, because I know that this is not within her brief—the Minister responsible sits in the other place— but I think that those who have been around for a while will understand that Ministers have a duty and a responsibility to sit down and meet their colleagues, which is why I am genuinely frustrated that there has not been such an opportunity.
Even at this late hour, I still think there would be merit in a meeting between Members on both sides of the House, from further afield than South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire and the Humber. I think they should get round the table in the Department with the Minister and the Secretary of State so that our concerns can be voiced. That, I think, would be a constructive gathering, because in the end we all want the same thing. None of us wants to see the jobs go; none of us wants to see South Yorkshire’s economic potential undermined by the loss of this strategic asset. All of us want to see a regional airport strategy that works in the best interests of our regions.
I have never been one of those people who pit the north against the south. That is an entirely unhelpful metric. The Minister is looking around; I do not suggest for a moment that anyone present is doing that, but sometimes in the context of a conversation about levelling up, the north is pitted against the south and vice versa. I note that an airport in Kent which closed a number of years ago is about to reopen. The Government are supporting that proposal, and I think they are doing the right thing. I want people in Kent to have the best possible access to such facilities. However, I also want people in South Yorkshire, in Doncaster, in the north of England, to have access to this kind of infrastructure.
We will have a new Prime Minister very shortly. He is a Yorkshire MP. There is a big opportunity for him to do something significant at this late hour. The new Prime Minister knows his way around the Treasury, and he knows what the art of the possible is.
Alexander Stafford
The hon. Member says that there is an opportunity for the new Prime Minister to do something. Apart from having a meeting with Members who are in the Chamber tonight, what is the “something”, which keeps being alluded to, that Members want the Government to do? Is there a lever that the Government are not pulling which the hon. Member wants them to pull? On our side, we are saying that the South Yorkshire Mayor will want to make a compulsory purchase. What lever does the hon. Member believe the Government should be pulling?
Dan Jarvis
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North made very clear, the option involving the Civil Contingencies Act does provide a mechanism—[Interruption.] The Minister laughs. The legal advice that underpins the excellent work done by my right hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster North and for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton) comes from one of the pre-eminent legal minds in our country, described by the hon. Member for Don Valley as a Labour peer. The truth of the matter is that this is someone who is highly respected within—[Interruption.] The Minister chunters from a sedentary position. [Interruption.] We are trying to be constructive here, and the proposal that was brought forward was absolutely worthy of merit. I very much hope that officials in the Minister’s Department have looked at it closely and taken legal advice. The letter from my right hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster North and for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton), which many of us co-signed, invited the Minister in a sensible grown-up and constructive way to meet us to have a conversation about this, but we have never had that meeting. It is very frustrating that we have not had the opportunity to sit round the table and have a grown-up conversation—[Interruption.] The Minister is yawning and looking at her watch. People’s jobs are on the line and Government Ministers will not get round the table and meet us —[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We will not have this conversation from a sedentary position. The Minister will very shortly be addressing the House and will be able to answer all these questions. Very shortly, I think.
Dan Jarvis
I will take the hint, Madam Deputy Speaker, and draw my remarks to a conclusion.
Members put it to the Secretary of State at Transport questions recently that we thought there was merit in having a grown-up conversation. The Secretary of State said that she did not want to do that. That is a great shame. Imagine what it must feel like tonight for the people who work at Doncaster Sheffield airport. They can see the clock ticking down and they are days, hours, away from losing their jobs, yet Government Ministers will not even sit down with Members of Parliament to hear their concerns. I would be happy to give way to the Minister if she can tell me that she is happy to arrange an urgent meeting with Members from across the House. In my time in this House, I can never remember a situation where a matter of such importance as this has not led to a ministerial meeting.
Nick Fletcher
I just want to quickly go back a bit, and then I will address the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I believe that the £20 million loan was withdrawn around about 12 March and never actually made it to the cabinet meeting that was going to sign it off. That is when it should have been signed off. I believe that there is no record of it in the minutes. As I say, this is only what I am led to believe. There was no record of it in the minutes; it was not there. I do not believe that the Mayor for Doncaster raised it either. That is an important point, and maybe we can look at those minutes to see if it was there.
This is why am asking for a public inquiry. I am trying to be collegial here. I have tried all the way through this, and I will continue to try, but I have been excluded from meeting after meeting of Labour Members with regard to working groups and suchlike. I have also spoken to the Minister and the Secretary of State several times about the Civil Contingencies Act.
Dan Jarvis
I am mindful of your advice to draw matters to a conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, but would say to the hon. Member that we are trying to save the airport here. He might want to dig into the minutes but, as I said to him previously, the offer was on the table and in April 2022, Peel indicated that it did not wish to continue with developing the loan proposal at that time. That is the absolute fact of the matter.
My final point is to return to the frustration, which is held by many, that we have not had the opportunity to meet Ministers to impress upon them the importance of this issue. I very much hope that when the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box she will take the opportunity to confirm that she will urgently convene a meeting and give Members from right across the House and from all in the region who have been represented in the debate the opportunity to have a constructive meeting with the Secretary of State, given the importance of the issue. I very much hope that she will take the opportunity tonight to confirm that the Secretary of State will be prepared to do that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Katherine Fletcher)
Let me first apologise to the House. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) was correct: I was yawning. That is because I was up at 5.30 this morning to go and open Bond Street tube station, which is a cracking example of the type of investment that people working together can deliver for people. But he is correct, I am flagging a touch, so I will attempt to keep my remarks brief.
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher). He is possibly the best Fletcher in this House. It is obvious how important this debate is to people, and I praise his tenacity in championing this issue. He cares about the future of the airport, he cares about his constituents and he cares about his friends and family. I was touched listening to him talk about watching the Vulcans. I saw them as a child at Woodford aerodrome, which is no longer there. I miss seeing them, and I share his passion for it, even though I do not have the aviation brief.
The Government are deeply disappointed that the Peel Group has taken this difficult decision to close Doncaster Sheffield airport. It is a commercial decision made by the airport’s owners, and I am aware of the concerns about this decision among passengers, constituents across the South Yorkshire region, businesses and organisations in the supply chain and people who work at the airport.
I set out many of the issues during the urgent question, but I will give a brief recap. I make it clear that, although the UK Government support airports, we do not own or operate them. Several Opposition Members have suggested that a meeting would magically unlock the situation, but I do not believe it would—I will return to the topic of meetings.
The devolved Administrations, local authorities and combined authorities in other areas of the UK are frequently shareholders in the regional airports that serve their communities, as is the case with Manchester Airports Group, Birmingham airport, London Luton airport and, more recently, Teesside International airport. The UK aviation market operates predominantly in the private sector. Airports invest in their infrastructure to attract airlines and passengers, and airlines are well placed to deliver services to their customers by responding to the demand for different routes.
Since the Peel Group’s announcement on 13 July of a review into the future of Doncaster Sheffield airport, the Government have been actively working with local stakeholders to encourage a future for aviation at the site. I understand that South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority and Doncaster Council have been working to explore options for a locally led solution. The local authorities have written to the Peel Group to pass on the details of the parties who are interested in discussing the potential to invest in the airport. I understand that, as of today, the Peel Group has already begun to engage with the parties interested in a commercial deal.
The aviation Minister, Baroness Vere, met the Peel Group on 19 October and strongly encouraged it to engage seriously with any interested parties, and has received assurances that it will do so. She has been strongly encouraging the Peel Group to consider the offer of financial bridging support from the local authorities and the mayoral combined authority if it requires time to take forward discussions with investors. I understand that there are some questions that need to be addressed about the stepping stones to medium-term strategic viability, but she has discussed that with the Peel Group.
The Government have remained engaged with all parties throughout the review. Since the decision to close the airport, there has been regular contact between officials and representatives from the Peel Group, the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority and Doncaster Council. The Government are committed to encouraging local leaders and the Peel Group to work together to find a solution for the site that will benefit local people and the regional economy.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) mentioned that Doncaster Sheffield airport currently offers a base for the National Police Air Service and for 2Excel Aviation, a private company that delivers search and rescue services for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. I am happy to confirm that Baroness Vere has met 2Excel and understands that there are contingency plans in place. Officials have also engaged with the Home Office about the National Police Air Service fixed wing support.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) mentioned Lord Falconer, who I am sure is an eminent legal brain. He has had the opportunity to meet Baroness Vere and to engage on whether the threshold for civil contingencies has been met. The threshold is necessarily extremely high, as the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out when the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 was introduced by the Blair Government. Unfortunately Baroness Vere, despite Lord Falconer’s suggestion, is not happy that this is a national emergency, because both services have engaged with her and can put in place contingency plans. She is further assured that the Peel Group is working with them to make sure that any bridging period is covered. That does not cover the essence of the debate, but I just want to offer the hon. Lady that assurance.
The Government have made it clear to Peel Group that it needs to manage the closure process effectively and in consultation with operators at Doncaster Sheffield Airport. The Peel Group has publicly stated that it will work with those operators to minimise the disruption to their operations and customers. We have pressed Peel Group to honour that—when I say “we”, I mean my colleagues within the Department—and to avoid disruption to those important operations.
The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 has been mentioned. It requires a high bar to be engaged. It requires an emergency, which is defined as a situation that threatens
“serious damage to human welfare…damage to the environment…or war, or terrorism”
which affects the security of the United Kingdom. As someone who has used Robin Hood airport, as it then was, I understand how important such an airport is. However, the advice the Department is getting is not that the threshold has been reached to engage the 2004 Act. As the Transport Secretary has highlighted, we are just not persuaded on that. I think we can all agree that it would be much better for all if a commercial solution could be found to minimise the disruption to these operations.
Stephanie Peacock
Obviously we have a disagreement, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has outlined. May I just press the Minister to explain to the House and to us why the Secretary of State is refusing to meet Opposition Members? Can the Minister not this evening just commit to a meeting?
Katherine Fletcher
I ask the hon. Lady to bear with me for a moment, because I am planning to address that. I will first just address the call for a public inquiry made so passionately by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. A very high bar needs to be cleared for a public inquiry. Although we have gone away to look and understand the potential grounds for one, the recommendation is that a locally led review and solution could have similar and perhaps more positive effects in a shorter timescale than the full public inquiry that he calls for. He notes that South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority and Doncaster Council are integral to developing commercially viable solutions. Discussions between the authority, council and Peel are still ongoing, to assess the credibility of investors. As he outlined, powers sit with the local authorities and, as such, I think it would be right for the local authorities and their leaders to push for a locally led review, rather than having a public inquiry at this time.
Nick Fletcher
Would that not be people marking their own homework? That is all I am concerned about.
Katherine Fletcher
I am probably at the point where my expertise in the aviation portfolio is far outweighed by that of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who is sat on the Bench in front of my hon. Friend and perhaps would be able to offer him some advice on that.
I wish to return to the point about meetings. I have mentioned Lord Falconer and his legal advice, and the meeting with Baroness Vere about the Civil Contingencies Act option. I am reliably advised that meetings with Department for Transport officials have been offered to the South Yorkshire Mayor by the Secretary of State as a prelude to further meetings. DFT officials are also having weekly meetings with the local authorities, often involving the chief executive of Doncaster Council. I will happily give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney if this is not correct, but I am also informed by officials that when he was previously aviation Minister he convened a meeting between Mayor Ben Houchen and Mayor Oliver Coppard in which this was included.
Stephanie Peacock
It is great that the Minister has listed those meetings, but she has failed to answer the point that I have made, along with many of my colleagues: the Secretary of State sat there at Transport questions and three times refused to meet us. She is not here this evening. Why will the Minister not just agree to meet Labour Members?
Katherine Fletcher
Unfortunately, I cannot acquiesce to the hon. Lady’s request, because the issue is not within my portfolio. I am extremely happy to pass on her request to the aviation Minister, but I am sure the hon. Lady would not want me to make commitments for her at the Dispatch Box when she is not here.
We have met the emergency services, Lord Falconer, 2Excel, the police and the local Mayor, and we have organised other meetings. I gently say to several Opposition Members that this all seems a bit panicky when I have given a bit of a to-do list of what is being done and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley has been running such an effective campaign for 104 days.
Katherine Fletcher
I am going to make some progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) spoke passionately about Yorkshire’s vision and future and about his desire to join up the dots. As a nascent Transport Minister, I share the idea that joining up the dots and setting out a coherent vision for the future is really important, be that for the north-west, South Yorkshire, the northern powerhouse or the whole country, and I commend him for his point.
To conclude, I congratulate everybody who has participated in possibly one of the lengthiest Adjournment debates—as my first Adjournment debate, it will certainly last long in my memory. I am delighted to hear everybody share their memories and their passion. In the spirit of working together, I look forward to results perhaps coming through.
Doncaster Sheffield airport is important to constituencies across the House and the region, and I have no doubt about the strength of people’s feelings. I call on Peel Group to continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that the impacts of its decision to close the airport are minimised or that another solution is found. The Government are clear in their wish to see local leaders work on a solution that best serves the interests of the wider community, and the Department stands ready to help. I am pleased that potential investors have come forward and registered an interest, and I reiterate my desire for Peel Group to engage in the best possible way. I have been assured that it has given that commitment to Baroness Vere, and I hope that it will consider the bridging support offered, to allow for commercial decisions to move forward.
The Government will continue to work with all parties to exhaust all options to preserve the airport.
Katherine Fletcher
I am nearly done.
However, we recognise that the final decision on whether an offer is accepted sits with Peel, because this is a commercial airport site. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I think this has been a really good debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 3) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lucy Frazer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 3) Regulations 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The draft regulations will be made under powers conferred by the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021. Following our departure from the EU, that legislation created a more flexible set of powers for Ministers to implement alleviation measures related to the impacts of covid, subject to a vote in both Houses, allowing us to adapt our support to better support the recovery of the aviation sector.
Ordinarily, airlines must operate their airport slots 80% of the time to retain the right to those same slots the following year. It is known as the 80:20 rule, or the “use it or lose it” rule, and it encourages the efficient use of scarce airport capacity. This summer, we saw a promising recovery in passenger demand. It is has been welcome that so many of us have again been able to visit family and friends, or to travel abroad for a much deserved break. However, demand remains below pre-covid levels and the recovery has not been without challenges. We know that the sector struggled to ramp up operations and there was widespread disruption at airports in the early summer, so we have designed a package of measures for the winter season that aims to balance the recovery of the sector with the enabling of airlines to plan deliverable schedules.
Let me go through the background. When the pandemic struck, initially the 80:20 rule was fully waived to avoid environmentally damaging and financially costly flights with few or no passengers. We then offered generous alleviation for four seasons, while travel restrictions remained and demand was still uncertain. Last summer, we implemented a 70% usage ratio, reflecting the more positive outlook in demand. We have provided additional alleviation during this season in response to the high levels of disruption at airports arising from the continuing impact of covid.
We have determined that there is a continued reduction in demand that is likely to persist and we consider that further alleviation measures are justified for winter 2022, which runs from 30 October 2022 to 25 March 2023, so on 20 July we published this draft statutory instrument, setting out the package of measures that we propose. The package was fully developed following consultation with industry and the careful consideration of the responses. The draft instrument applies to England, Scotland and Wales. Aerodromes are a devolved matter in Northern Ireland and, as there are currently no slot-co-ordinated airports in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Executive agreed that it was not necessary for the powers in the Act to extend to or apply in Northern Ireland.
We focused measures in the draft instrument on encouraging the ongoing recovery in flight traffic while protecting connectivity to destinations where restrictions remain in place, and on minimising the risk of disruption at airports while the sector recovers. That includes retaining the 70:30 usage requirement, meaning that airlines are required to use their slots at least 70% of the time to retain the right to operate the same slots the following year.
The regulations include a justified non-use provision, which provides alleviation for airlines flying in restricted markets. For this winter, we have expanded the list of covid-19 restrictions that airlines may use to justify not using their slots if they severely reduce demand for the route, or its viability, to include pre-departure testing requirements. The restrictions covered also include flight bans and quarantine or self-isolation requirements applied at either end of the route. As was the position in summer 2020, that will apply whether or not restrictions could reasonably have been foreseen, to ensure that we are protecting carriers in markets with long-term restrictions in place.
There will be a three-week recovery period during which justified non-use may still apply following the end of restrictions. We will also allow early applications for justified non-use. By that I mean that when an official Government announcement about the duration of covid-19 restrictions gives rise to a reasonable expectation that they will still be in place on the date of the operation of the slots, the carrier will be able to apply for justified non-use at that point, rather than having to reapply every three weeks. That will allow the earlier handing back of slots so that other carriers can effectively use them, as well as remove some of the administrative burdens on airlines.
In the winter of 2021, we allowed “full series handback”, whereby an airline could retain rights to slots for the following year if it returned the series to the slot co-ordinator before the season’s start. For this winter season, we have included a more limited measure that allows carriers to claim alleviation on up to 10% of their slots at any airport if they return them to the slot co-ordinator for reallocation before the season’s start. That should encourage carriers to plan their schedules in advance and give passengers more certainty.
The measures will cover the winter 2022 season; we are currently considering whether further alleviation is likely to be justified for summer 2023. We will consult with the industry and interested MPs to inform our policy later this year.
In conclusion, the draft instrument provides necessary relief for the aviation sector for winter 2022. Through the measures I have outlined, we have aimed to strike a balance between supporting the sector and encouraging recovery and the efficient use of slots. For those reasons, I commend the draft instrument to the Committee.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, after a historic weekend when Bolton Wanderers beat Accrington Stanley 3-2. You must be delighted. We also have a new Prime Minister-designate, and Government Members could not look glummer. Everybody should cheer up and wait by their phones: there could be a call coming their way any time soon.
The UK aviation sector was enormously impacted by the covid-19 pandemic. As the Minister said, 99% of all flights were grounded almost overnight. It was unbelievable really. The industry has started to recover but is still not back to where it was. The powers in the statutory instrument will enable carriers to better plan schedules and provide flexibility, while reducing the risk of short-notice cancellations. I hope that throughout the House we agree that the same-day cancellations that we have seen lately in the airline industry should never happen.
I will be brief as we will not oppose the regulations. We understand the significant challenges that the pandemic brought to the sector. Since March 2020 it has been necessary to reduce the 80:20 rule to 70:30. The reasons are multiple. When the skies reopened, there were issues with staffing at airports that were unprepared for the volume of travellers who wanted to fly again for holidays or to visit family, and it was necessary to intervene to protect consumers—although one might argue that had an aviation sectoral deal been provided, the jobs lost would have been retained and we would not have had to intervene again.
In six days, airlines will be in the winter season and will be flying winter timetables. As it stands, levels of air traffic are still not up to pre-pandemic levels, hovering somewhere around 80% of the levels for the corresponding period. We would not want to see airlines flying almost-empty flights in order to retain their slots. We do not want to see aviation fuel burn for no reason as ghost flights take off to protect grandfather rights to a slot.
I note that the consultation was carried out some time ago, from May to June 2022. At that time the country and the sector were in a very different position, but I will not labour the point about the chaos in airports that was front-page news for far too long. I note that there were a variety of responses from airlines and airports. Would it be possible for the Minister to apprise us of the formula used to arrive at the 70:30 requirement and the metrics used to do so? Will there be a retrospective assessment to see whether the change to 70:30 was correct?
Will the Minister assure me that, should we find ourselves meeting to discuss this matter again before the release of the summer 2023 timetables, the Government will re-consult? I very much hope that it will be unnecessary to do so or for Government to intervene, but we must not rule it out entirely. I hope that a full retrospective assessment and full consultation would be carried out.
Let me make a few points before I finish. This is not my first discussion of this nature since I came into my post, and I am sure it will not be the last. I wish to take the opportunity, as I do every time we discuss aviation, to make the case for airspace modernisation, the lack of which also prevents cleaner, greener, point-to-point flights. When will we see some progress? When we will see a real commitment to something on which the whole industry agrees and which would offer so many benefits? Perhaps the Minister could advise us as to what is causing the delay to the much-needed modernisation of our airspace in the United Kingdom?
Lucy Frazer
It is always a pleasure to answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. I was pleased that he made the sensible point, with which we agree, that we do not want ghost flights, which are unnecessary both financially and in terms of the economy. The Government’s position on short-notice cancellation is that we have proactively offered carriers the flexibility to hand back up to 10% of slots at airports. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the formula, I reassure him that the Government look at the demand forecasts available and make decisions on the basis of those forecasts.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about modernisation. I reassure him that we are committed to modernisation, for the reasons he set out. We have a manifesto commitment in this policy area and have already provided £9.2 million to support progress and enable sponsors to complete stage 2 of the airspace change programme. Earlier in 2022, the Civil Aviation Authority and my Department, as co-sponsors, approved the second iteration of the Airspace Change Organisation Group’s UK airspace change masterplan, which was published in January and sets the direction for the airspace change programme.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful points. For the reasons I have set out, I commend the draft instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 2022
Draft Health and Care Act 2022 (Further Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Will Quince)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 2022.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Health and Care Act 2022 (Further Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2022.
Will Quince
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. Tooth decay is a significant yet largely preventable public health problem throughout the country. Water fluoridation is an effective public health intervention to reduce the incidence of tooth decay and oral health inequalities. The water fluoridation provisions of the Health and Care Act 2022 will come into force on 1 November, and in doing so will transfer the power to initiate new schemes, or to vary or terminate existing schemes, from local authorities to the Secretary of State.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
We should make no mistake about what we are doing here. This is compulsory medication, because water is essential to human life. Will the Minister clarify one matter? Paragraph 7.8 of the explanatory memorandum says that it is not intended that consultations will amount to a referendum, and that decisions will depend on
“a range of factors…including…cogency of the argument”.
Who is to decide on the cogency of the argument: an independent arbiter or some pro-fluoridation fanatic?
Will Quince
I will come on to talk specifically about the consultation; then, perhaps in my closing remarks, I will go into a bit more detail about the role of the Secretary of State, which I think is the crux of my right hon. Friend’s question. Of course, we dealt with the fundamental principle of water fluoridation in the debates on the 2022 Act, and we do not want to go over those arguments again.
We have always been clear that, in looking at how we decide how to consult on water fluoridation schemes, public consultation will continue to be an important aspect of water fluoridation proposals, and the draft regulations set out the process that any future consultations must follow. Despite there being no statutory requirement to do so before laying the draft regulations, we of course consulted with the public because we know that some people, including my right hon. Friend, have strong feelings on the subject of water fluoridation and consultations relating to it. We are keen to gather public opinion on our suggested consultation approach.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The fact that this power is being taken from the local authority level up to the Secretary of State would suggest that the Secretary of State, or the previous Secretary of State, believes that the decisions on—or progress of, as it might be seen—the fluoridisation of England’s water have not gone far enough. The Government clearly start with an intent to fluoridise more of England’s water. The intent is already there and the direction is being pushed in regardless of what consultation there is. It is not clear that local voices will be represented, as opposed to the establishment will that currently exists.
Will Quince
I note my hon. Friend’s concerns. I will come on to address them, and if I do not do so immediately—because I am going to talk about the consultation and how we propose to undertake it—I will do so in my closing remarks about the duty of the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend is right that it is important that localities have a say on such things as water fluoridisation.
Chris Green
The question of localities is important. I am a Greater Manchester MP; will Bolton be the local authority that makes the decision for my area? How much influence will the integrated care board have? Will it be a Greater Manchester Combined Authority decision, or will it be a mayoral decision?
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is right to push us on those issues. I will touch on them all, because it is about not just local authorities, metro Mayors and others having a say, but all those who live, work and study in an area. No doubt they will have strong views, notwithstanding me as a Health Minister having a view when it comes to tooth decay and the difference that fluoridation will have in that respect.
We launched a public consultation on 8 April that ran until 3 June. We sought views on whether future water fluoridation consultations should be restricted only to people affected locally and bodies with an interest, such as those referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West—incidentally, that had been the case under legislation—or whether we should move to a model in which consultation would open to all, especially given the shift of responsibility from local authorities to central Government. Some people with strong views on water fluoridation may not live in a particular area but may have certain expertise or a particular interest.
We received 1,228 responses to the consultation; of those, 94% came from individuals and 6% came from organisations. The majority of respondents favoured a consultation open to all. The draft regulations will not restrict who can respond to any future consultation on water fluoridation, which I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West agree is the right approach.
To come to the crux of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West’s points, we understand that the views of those who are directly affected and living, working and studying in an area in question are incredibly important. For that reason, the regulations also provide for consideration to be given, as part of the decision-making process, to whether additional weight should be given to consultation responses from those who may be particularly affected by any future proposals.
Public opinion and the extent of support for a water fluoridation proposal will continue to be important but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire rightly pointed out, consultations are not referendums. It is right that regulations provide for a range of other factors to be taken into account when considering a water fluoridation proposal.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
In the consultation, were any of the representations made about the European convention on human rights, particularly articles 5 and 8?
Will Quince
The honest answer is that I am not aware of any, but no doubt my officials will look that up and I will be able to respond in my closing remarks.
The wider factors that have to be taken into account in the consultation include but are not limited to the strength of evidence underpinning an argument made by the respondents. It is absolutely right that due regard is given to those arguments and that they are properly supported by sound evidence.
On evidence, a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire alluded to, we are committed to scientific evidence on water fluoridation. It has to underpin any proposal that we put forward. The Department continues to review scientific papers published both in this country and internationally as part of the continuous monitoring of the evidence. That includes papers on the epidemiology and toxicology of water fluoridation. Every four years, the Department will continue to publish a summary report on our knowledge, in line with the Secretary of State’s responsibility for monitoring the effects of the water fluoridation arrangements on the health of the populations that are served by existing schemes.
Chris Green
What is the Government’s view of side effects? As far as the Government are aware, are there zero side effects from the fluoridation of water?
Will Quince
I will come to that point. The common finding of several authoritative scientific reviews is that there is no convincing scientific evidence that fluoride in drinking water, at levels used in fluoridation schemes, is a cause of adverse health effects. Let me provide further assurance that if the balance of evidence in favour of water fluoridation as a public health measure were to change, a review of the current water fluoridation policy would take place.
I am conscious that I was not the Minister when the Act was passed, but this same point was made during the passage of the 2022 Act. We have 57 years of experience in England and 75 years of experience internationally of water fluoridation schemes. There continues to be no convincing evidence of health harms associated with the levels of water fluoridation use in this country. In fact, what we have seen internationally is more countries moving in that direction because of the benefits of tackling tooth decay, particularly in children.
Sir Greg Knight
The Minister is being generous in giving way. What is the duty to monitor and sample water where fluoride has been added to ensure that the dosage of fluoride is not excessive?
Will Quince
I do not know the answer off the top of my head. My officials can certainly look it up. If I can get that before my closing speech, I will. Failing that, I will of course write to my right hon. Friend and all members of the Committee to furnish them with that evidence.
Another important factor is the cost-benefit analysis, because the schemes are not cheap. They have a huge benefit, but they also come with a sizeable cost. One element in deciding whether we proceed with a water fluoridation proposal is of course a cost-benefit analysis of said proposal, and any new proposal would have to demonstrate that the benefit to health represents good value for the investment of public money being proposed.
As I have set out, where the conditions are met, we want more of the country to benefit from water fluoridation. I am pleased to announce that, subject to the outcome of this debate and any future consultations, funding has been secured to begin expansion across the north-east into Northumberland, County Durham, Sunderland, South Tyneside and Teesside, including Redcar and Cleveland, Stockton-on-Tees, Darlington and Middlesbrough. I know that the local authorities in those areas are strong supporters of water fluoridation.
In accordance with the regulations we are debating—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West will appreciate this because he rightly makes the point that we need to consult the public—we will hold a public consultation on the proposal next year. It is important to stress that the expansion will enable an additional 1.6 million people to benefit from water fluoridation. It will help to reduce the levels of tooth decay in the area and, over time, reduce the numbers of children who need to be admitted to hospital for tooth extractions because of decay. As children in more deprived areas are at greater risk of tooth decay, expansion will help to level up dental health for the children and families who need it most. I am conscious there were some other questions and will try to come back to as many as I can in my closing remarks.
Let me turn to the draft Health and Care Act 2022 (Further Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2022, and start with the mandatory learning disability and autism training. People with a learning disability and autistic people face barriers in accessing the right care and support. I know that from my time as Minister for Children and Families at the Department for Education. We know that, compared with the general population, people with a learning disability are more than three times as likely to die from an avoidable medical cause of death.
The introduction of mandatory training on learning disability and autism is an important way to address persistent disparities in health and care outcomes for the affected group of people, and it will ensure that staff have the right skills and knowledge to deliver safe and good quality care. That is why the Government introduced, from 1 July, a new requirement that Care Quality Commission-registered providers have to ensure that their health and social care staff receive training on learning disability and autism appropriate to their role.
The Health and Care Act 2022 also creates a duty for the Secretary of State to publish a code of practice that will outline how to meet the new requirement, which will include the content of training, its delivery, and the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of said training. The code of practice is being developed and we expect to publish a draft for consultation next year.
The 2022 Act amends section 20 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 so that regulations must require service providers to ensure that their employees receive training on learning disability and autism. Section 23(1) of the 2008 Act requires the CQC to issue guidance about complying with the requirements of the regulations under section 20. In its current form, the 2022 Act imposes a duty on the CQC to issue statutory guidance about the new training requirements for service providers. The CQC published the guidance on 1 July, so if it is left unchanged, service providers will have two sets of guidance—statutory guidance that is issued by the CQC and a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State.
To avoid duplication and to ensure that service providers have a single source of information, this tidying-up regulation seeks to improve the situation by removing the requirement for the CQC to issue statutory guidance about the training requirements by amending section 23(1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. As agreed with the CQC, the statutory guidance that it has published will be accessible for service providers until the code of practice is published.
Let me turn to virginity testing and hymenoplasty. Safeguarding vulnerable women and girls is a top priority for the Government, which is why we were one of the first countries in the world to ban virginity testing and hymenoplasty. Virginity testing and hymenoplasty have no scientific merit or clinical indication and they are a violation of human rights. They have an adverse impact on women and girls’ physical, psychological and social wellbeing; they are degrading and intrusive acts; and they can lead to extreme psychological trauma in the victim, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide.
Virginity testing and hymenoplasty can be physically harmful. They can result in damage to the hymen, tears and damage to the wall of the vagina, and bleeding and infection. The risk of infection is particularly high in hymenoplasty, which has the added risks of acute bleeding during the procedure, scarring, the narrowing of the opening of the vagina and sexual difficulties. As such, we are proud that the 2022 Act made carrying out, offering and aiding and abetting virginity testing and hymenoplasty illegal.
As the offences are new, certain changes to other legislation are necessary to protect vulnerable groups. The Scottish Government have requested that a change be made to the Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984, which contains a list of matters that seek to disqualify a person from fostering a child in Scotland. The consequential amendments proposed today would add to that list the conviction of an offence of virginity testing or hymenoplasty in relation to a child. This change would also flow through to assessments by adoption agencies in Scotland under the Adoption Agencies (Scotland) Regulations 2009 with regard to the suitability of prospective adopters.
The 2009 regulations require suitability assessments to be carried out with reference to a range of information, including whether the prospective adopter or any member of their household has been disqualified or prohibited from keeping a foster child under the 1984 Act. The change would have the effect of disqualifying or enabling the disqualification of individuals convicted of virginity testing or hymenoplasty offences from fostering or adopting in Scotland. Similar changes are already in place in equivalent English and Welsh law, and this will help to protect girls and young women from so-called honour-based abuse. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray.
Poor oral health is far too common in 21st century Britain and, as is so often the case, it has the most significant impact on already vulnerable and disadvantaged people. Oral health has suffered from a chronic lack of investment, with a number of opportunities missed to make a serious impact on interventions. Those interventions have long since disappeared given the deep cuts made to public health budgets throughout the country, but one such measure that remains is putting fluoride in our water, which is an effective, evidence-based intervention on oral health—nothing more and nothing less. Given that fact, and the major health inequalities we face, we should actively pursue the rolling out of these schemes to the communities that would benefit the most.
When pursuing water fluoridation, it is vital that we start where communities are and bring them with us. I am therefore particularly pleased to see the emphasis the regulations place on the need for proactive engagement and consultation with local communities when the plans are rolled out. Given the mismatch of local authority and water-provider boundaries, the centralisation of the process is understandable, but it makes engagement even more important, as the Minister set out.
Given the regulations’ positive intention to improve oral health, where is the action to address the crisis of access to NHS dentistry? The Government spend on general practice in England has been cut by more than a third over the past decade, with the number of NHS dental practices in England falling by more than 1,200 in the five years prior to the pandemic. Tooth extraction remains the No. 1 cause of children being admitted to A&E. We welcome the regulations on fluoridation, but I gently remind the Minister that if we are to see progress on oral health, much more needs to be done.
On the second set of regulations, it is good to see the tidying up of the Health and Care Act 2022. I want to ask the Minister if it is correct that the regulations cover the statutory guidance on training for learning disabilities and autism?
Feryal Clark
I just wanted to check, because the Minister mentioned virginity tests and hymenoplasty. I want to make clear our support for the change in that guidance on learning disability and autism training. The regulations are welcome, and their implementation is now a task for the Government.
Virginity testing and hymenoplasty are serious practices with no medical benefits that do not work in service of the goal they are supposedly pursuing. They are not medical practices; they are nothing more than abuse. Both practices are a violation of women’s and girls’ human rights. As the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has stated,
“Both are harmful practices that create and exacerbate social, cultural and political beliefs that a woman’s value is based on whether or not she is a virgin before marriage.”
Women need and deserve ownership of their sexual and reproductive health. It is our right. Those who deny women that right in any part of our country are criminal. They must not have the right to foster a child. We cannot and must not entrust the care of a child to anyone who has committed such a heinous crime. We welcome the regulations and support the measures.
Will Quince
I thank colleagues for their contributions, and the Opposition for their constructive response and the tone of their questions. I will focus on water fluoridation and then come to dental access, which is not entirely related, but is important and a priority for me.
Consultations seem to be the key issue, so let me focus on them. I am happy to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West to discuss this issue at greater length as we progress toward consultations. On the additional weighting that will be given to local views, which is important, the regulations require the Secretary of State to take into consideration a range of factors when making a decision on water fluoridation. That includes giving consideration to whether the views are of individuals directly affected and constitute bodies with an interest. If they are, they should be given additional weight. There are clearly established public law principles that require public bodies to act lawfully, rationally, fairly and compatibly with the human rights of those affected by their actions. We would quite rightly have to justify any decisions taken on a future scheme as part of the decision-making process.
One of the questions asked was on the methodology of the extra weight given to local people as per the regulations. Under the Water Industry Act 1991, as amended, Parliament granted the Secretary of State the power and discretion to make decisions on future fluoridation steps in England, including establishing, varying and terminating fluoridation agreements. To give those powers additional weight, the Secretary of State will be bound by the regulations to do that in an appropriate manner, in accordance with the public law principles of rationality that I have just set out.
I remind the Committee that implied in the Secretary of State’s existing direction is the power to grant additional weight to any person or persons whom she deems fit. In effect, all this provision does is to compel the Secretary of State to give due consideration to doing so. As I say, I would be very happy to pick that point up in more detail with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West.
Questions were raised about the duty of sampling water to ensure that a dosage is not too high. Clear regulations on water supply were laid in 2018. They allow up to 1.5 mg of fluoride per litre in public water supplies. I would be happy to write to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire about how water authorities are held to account to ensure that water is monitored and that limit adhered to.
Finally, I hear what the hon. Member for Enfield North says about dental access. Access to dentistry is difficult in too many parts of the country, especially when people do not have ongoing relationships with a dentist. In July, we announced a package of improvements to the NHS dental system, which was detailed in our plan for patients. The Committee will have noted that the Secretary of State has her A, B, C and D priorities, and D stands for doctors and, importantly, dentists. As the Minister with responsibility for primary care, I can tell the hon. Lady that dentistry is a priority for me. I know that the delivery of dental care suffered considerably during the pandemic, but it continues to improve as we recover. Many dentists are already delivering at or above 100% of their contracted activity, but I recognise that we need to go further, and I am meeting stakeholders in the profession to see what further steps we need to take.
Sir Oliver Heald
Were any consultees concerned about human rights issues, and would that impact on consulting and on the way in which the measures on sampling and so on are implemented?
Will Quince
I was not avoiding my right hon. and learned Friend’s question, but I do not have an answer for him as my officials have not been able to find one in the short time that they have had. I will certainly commit to writing to him and to any other Committee member who is interested. Of course, if people made challenges or raised concerns on those grounds, they would be given weight as part of any consultation.
I understand that this is an emotive subject and that there are strong views on either side of the debate. That debate has already been had as part of the passage of the Act, but I trust that my answers—notwithstanding the one that I have failed to deliver for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire—have provided some reassurance on the benefits of water fluoridation and, in particular, on the importance of the consultation regulations. The regulations reflect the consultation responses from the public, and will not restrict those who want to respond to future public consultations on water fluoridation schemes.
I hope that my answers have also provided some reassurance on removing the requirement of the CQC to issue statutory guidance on mandatory learning disability and autism training. Let me be clear: that will not leave service providers without clear information. It will not be removed until it has been replaced with the code of practice.
Sir Greg Knight
Will the Minister reassure us that if he writes to any single member of the Committee on any issue that has been raised, he will write to us all?
Will Quince
I can certainly give that commitment and assurance to my right hon. Friend. With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT HEALTH AND CARE ACT 2022 (FURTHER CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) REGULATIONS 2022
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Health and Care Act 2022 (Further Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2022.—(Will Quince.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Covid-19 Vaccines: Safety
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 602171, relating to the safety of covid-19 vaccines.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I will read out the prayer of the petition, which states:
“There has been a significant increase in heart attacks and related health issues since the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccines…This needs immediate and full scientific investigation to establish if there is any possible link with the Covid-19 vaccination rollout.
It is the duty of the Government to ensure that the prescribed medical interventions of its response to Coronavirus are safe. We believe that the recent and increasing volume of data relating to cardiovascular problems since the Covid-19 vaccine rollout began is…enough…to warrant a full Public Inquiry.”
The petition has amassed over 107,000 signatures, including signatories from my own Carshalton and Wallington constituency. I put on record my gratitude to the Petitions Committee Clerks and the team behind the scenes for organising today’s debate, and particularly to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—the MHRA —which recently briefed me on its vaccine safety surveillance strategy. Throughout my speech, I will point out why I do not think that the Government should launch a public inquiry into vaccine safety; it would be a waste of taxpayers’ money, and is not necessary for reasons that I will discuss.
The covid-19 vaccine has been the subject of four previous e-petitions debates in Westminster Hall, and of many other parliamentary debates, many questions and much Committee work since the pandemic hit. It is worth remembering that, for the first 26 months of the pandemic, over 178,000 people across the UK died within 28 days of a positive covid-19 test. It remains my position that vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from covid-19.
More than 53 million people in the UK have received at least their first covid-19 vaccine, and I put on record my thanks to the amazing staff and volunteers who contributed to that gargantuan operation, which was a shining example of effective national collaboration. I would go so far as to say that, in the public inquiry into covid, the Government should look at how the vaccine roll-out was such a success, how we can learn from that success and how we can apply those lessons in future circumstances.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
My hon. Friend has obviously done a lot of preparation for the debate. Did part of that preparation include looking at Oracle Films’ “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion”, which was produced about a month ago and has already had more than 1 million views online? Most people think it highly persuasive.
Elliot Colburn
I have not seen that publication, although I have read a lot of the significant amounts of material that have been shoved through my constituency office door by a large number of anti-vax protesters, who have flyposted my office on no less than a dozen occasions, and intimidated my 18-year-old apprentice and the people who live above my constituency office. Given that the content of that literature includes climate change denial, moon landing denial and so on, I am inclined to ignore it completely.
It is impossible to vaccinate every person in the country, nor should vaccines be thrust upon people without their consent. People have a right to know what is put in their bodies, and have the autonomy to decide whether to have a vaccination. It is therefore the job of the state to ensure not only that vaccines are safe for use and continually reviewed, but that knowledge of why they are safe and effective is communicated well to our constituents.
With that in mind, I will briefly outline the steps taken to review the safety of covid-19 vaccines before the roll-out, and the continuous monitoring of vaccine safety. All vaccines must be tested through a series of clinical trials to establish their efficacy and safety, and must have a product licence before they can be made available for widespread use in humans.
The MHRA is responsible for regulating all medicines and medical devices in the UK by ensuring they work and are acceptably safe. Starting in 2020, a dedicated team of MHRA scientists and clinicians carried out a rigorous, detailed scientific review of all the available data in the development of covid-19 vaccines, including from laboratory pre-clinical studies, clinical trials, manufacturing and quality controls, product sampling and testing of the final vaccine, and it considered the conditions for the vaccine’s safe supply and distribution.
In early June 2020, the MHRA set up an independent expert working group to begin some of the most important safety work. In August 2020, a second working group was formed with different expertise, this time to advise the MHRA on the benefits and risks of the vaccines in development. The groups were formed of 48 experts from outside the MHRA, including virologists, epidemiologists, immunologists and toxicologists.
In September 2020, the MHRA started preparing laboratories for independent batch testing of the vaccine. Although the vaccine manufacturers carried out their own comprehensive testing regimes on the batches of products they produced, it is vital that tests focusing on safety and quality are conducted independently too. In the UK, the independent testing is performed by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, which is part of the MHRA. Before any batch testing can reach the public, the NIBSC must conduct a rigorous assessment to check that it is consistent with characteristics derived from results from batches previously shown to be safe, and from effective clinical trials or routine clinical use. That work began in November 2020.
The covid-19 vaccines were developed in a co-ordinated way that allowed some stages of the assessment processes to happen in parallel, which enabled the producers and regulators to condense the time normally needed. That rolling review allowed the MHRA to review data as it became available from ongoing studies, rather than waiting.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
My hon. Friend talks about the independence of the MHRA, and I very much hope he is right about that. Is he aware that it is overwhelmingly funded by the pharmaceutical companies that it regulates? Does he have any concerns about the objectivity of its work?
Elliot Colburn
No, I see nothing to concern me about the independence of the MHRA. Indeed, I saw a group of anti-vax protesters outside the House today, holding up signs saying, “Vaccines kill,” and, “Would you not believe that pharmaceutical companies kill?” It seems a bit of a strange business model for a pharmaceutical company to kill off everyone it is trying to administer a vaccine to. I have seen absolutely nothing to concern me that the MHRA has any problems with independence.
For previous vaccines, we have had to wait for a full package and for each stage to be finished before moving on to the next stage. That is one of the reasons that the covid-19 vaccine was developed at such speed; corners were not cut, but the model was changed.
Pfizer and BioNTech fed the MHRA data to be assessed even before the final clinical submission in November 2020. Once it was submitted, scientific and clinical experts robustly and thoroughly reviewed it with scientific rigour, looking at all aspects, including the laboratory studies, the clinical trials and more. That included assessing the level of protection the product provides and how long that protection is provided for, as well as its safety, stability and how it needs to be stored.
On top of that, the MHRA has a range of experts inspecting the sites used across the whole lifecycle of the vaccine, from its initial development in a lab to its manufacture and distribution once approved. The inspectors work to legislation that incorporates internationally recognised clinical standards. The MHRA seeks advice from the Commission on Human Medicines, the Government’s independent advisory body, which critically assesses the data before advising the UK Government on the safety, quality and effectiveness of any potential vaccine.
I wish I could delve deeper into the specifics of how and why vaccines work, but we would be here all night and I do not want to duplicate the work that has been done in other debates. Nevertheless, I hope I have managed to demonstrate succinctly the rigorous scientific testing that occurs prior to a vaccine being distributed in the UK. However, the main premise of much of the literature that has been distributed about the impact of the covid-19 vaccine and the nationwide roll-out needs to be looked into. As part of its statutory functions, the MHRA continually monitors the use of vaccines to ensure that their benefits continue to outweigh any risks. This monitoring strategy is continuous, proactive and based on a wide range of information sources, with a dedicated team of scientists reviewing information daily to look for safety issues or unexpected events.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a good speech. My constituent Gareth Eve lost his wife Lisa Shaw when she was only 44, as a result of the AstraZeneca vaccine. He is not an anti-vaxxer. Although the debate is on the broad issue, does my hon. Friend agree that matters such as how families get compensation could be dealt with much better, even if he does not agree with a full public inquiry into the entire body of the issue? So many families, including that of my constituent, have been left waiting for that support for a very long time.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. I appreciate that hon. Members wish to represent their constituents, but interventions must be interventions and not speeches.
Elliot Colburn
I am very sorry to hear of the case of my hon. Friend’s constituent, and I agree that we need to look at compensation and measures when things go wrong. No vaccine is without risk. No medicine is without risk, but that is the balance that we must weigh up when making decisions about our own health.
Let me return to the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, and how that is monitored. The core of this work is individuals self-reporting any adverse effects post vaccination, and active surveillance of particular groups of adverse events. That is well known as the yellow card scheme. I recently met representatives of the MHRA to be briefed on its vaccine safety surveillance strategy, which has four main pillars, the first of which is enhanced passive surveillance through observed versus expected analysis. The MHRA performs enhanced statistical analysis on data generated through the yellow card scheme to evaluate observed versus expected event reports in order to determine whether more events are occurring after vaccination than might be expected ordinarily. That assists the MHRA to identify when and where vaccine-related side effects are signalled.
Secondly, the MHRA conducts rapid cycle analysis and ecological analysis to supplement the yellow card scheme, which relies on direct reporting. The MHRA also analyses anonymised electronic healthcare records, particularly by way of the clinical practice research datalink Aurum dataset, which captures data from 13 million registered GP patients in the UK. It will track a range of theoretical side effects in order to detect safety signals. The MHRA also performs ecological analysis to monitor trends in high priority vaccination population cohorts—for example, increased trends among the elderly.
Thirdly, the agency performs targeted active monitoring; it has developed a new, voluntary follow-up platform for a randomly selected group of those vaccinated through the NHS. The group is contacted at set intervals to determine the frequency and severity of any vaccine side effects. Finally, there are formal epidemiological studies. The above methods detect signals and patterns but do not necessarily confirm vaccine causation. As such, where necessary, formal epidemiological studies are undertaken to solidify causal links.
As of 28 September 2022, in the UK, 173,381 yellow cards had been reported for Pfizer-BioNTech; 246,393 for AstraZeneca; 42,437 for Moderna; 14 for Novavax; and 1,848 for vaccines where the brand was not specified. For Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna, the reporting rate is about two to five yellow cards per 1,000 doses administered.
The use of the yellow card scheme has been used as an example of why vaccines do not work, but it is important to note that the scheme is a self-reporting system. It cannot be used to prove a causal link between reported symptoms and potential damage caused. The reported reaction could have occurred regardless of the vaccine, or the person reporting could have no knowledge of the relationship between that symptom and the vaccine; it may have occurred even if the person had not been vaccinated altogether. I could get on the phone to the yellow card scheme right now and say that I have a side effect from a vaccine—I could completely make it up. The scheme has no verification process.
Danny Kruger
I think my hon. Friend is suggesting that the yellow card scheme numbers exaggerate the potential negative effect of the vaccines. Is he aware that the independent MHRA suggests that vaccine injuries have been under-reported by one in 10, meaning that there may be 10 times more vaccine-related injuries than the yellow card scheme reports? Surely, if there is an exaggeration, it is in the opposition direction from the one that he is suggesting.
Elliot Colburn
I am aware of that, but the point I am making is that the yellow card scheme is not a determining factor of damage done by the vaccine; there is no way to prove a causal link, as the reported reaction could have happened anyway. The worldwide awareness of covid, its blanket media coverage over multiple years, and the impact it has had on all our lives, are bound to have led to an increase in reports from previous vaccine roll-outs. Most reports relate to injection site reactions, including a sore arm and generalised symptoms, such as flu-like symptoms, illness, headache, chills, fatigue, nausea, fever, dizziness, weakness, aching muscles or rapid heartbeat. Generally, those reactions are not associated with more serious illness and likely reflect an expected, normal immune response to vaccines.
There have been some occurrences of inflammatory heart conditions following a covid-19 vaccination, but fortunately they are incredibly rare. For Pfizer, the suspected myocarditis reporting rate is 12 reports per 1 million doses. For suspected pericarditis, including viral pericarditis and infective pericarditis, the overall reporting rate is eight reports per 1 million doses. For Moderna, that is 42 per million, and for AstraZeneca four per million.
The events reported are typically mild, with individuals usually recovering within a short time, following standard treatment and rest. The benefits of the vaccines in protecting against covid-19 and the serious complications associated with it far outweigh any currently known side effects. I understand that one of the biggest concerns about vaccine safety is the potential influence on excess deaths. Of course, the excess mortality rates have increased. However, there is no evidence to prove a causal relationship between a spike in excess deaths and covid-19. I am not clinically trained, so I do not wish to preach in this debate, but multiple drivers could have caused the spike, including the impact of missed and delayed diagnoses earlier in the pandemic, and the long-term impact of covid-19 on people who contracted it; and that has been confirmed to me by the MHRA.
In one study this year, researchers estimated how often covid-19 leads to cardiovascular problems. They found that people who had the disease faced a substantially increased risk for 20 cardiovascular conditions in the year after infection with coronavirus. Researchers say that such complications can happen even in people who seem to have completely recovered from a mild infection. With millions—perhaps even billions—of people having been infected with the virus, clinicians are wondering whether the pandemic will be followed by a cardiovascular aftershock. Again, I am not clinically trained, but I wanted to touch on that point to provide some food for thought, because I understand that the issues around excess mortality rates are of extreme importance.
Easily the biggest elephant in the room while discussing the safety of the covid-19 vaccine and a potential inquiry into its safety is that the Government have already announced a public inquiry into their handling of the covid-19 pandemic as a whole. Since the Government responded to the petition, the terms of reference for the UK covid-19 public inquiry have been published by the Cabinet Office. One of the inquiry’s aims is to examine
“The response of the health and care sector across the UK…including the development, delivery and impact of therapeutics and vaccines”.
The first preliminary hearing of module 1 of the inquiry took place just a few weeks ago, with the second due to take place next Monday. The inquiry will further announce modules in 2023 that are expected to cover both system and impact issues, including vaccines, therapeutics and antiviral treatment. I would be grateful if the Minister could shed a bit more light on the aim of the content of the modules that will be investigating the vaccines, and if she could provide more details on how others can contribute towards the process, including those who signed the petition.
I will bring my comments to a close because other Members wish to contribute. I appreciate that for some people the question of whether the covid-19 vaccine is safe is still up in the air, and I understand that my comments may not easily persuade them otherwise. However, we know that vaccines are the best way to protect against covid-19 and they have already saved tens of thousands of lives. I hope that I can offer some reassurance to those who are unsure about this matter that the right steps were taken to ensure that vaccines were safe prior to roll-out, and that vaccines continue to be monitored for their safety and effectiveness. I hope that they can also be reassured by the Minister’s remarks that the Government are including an extensive investigation into the vaccine as part of their covid-19 public inquiry, and that separate investigation is not necessary.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Nobody from the Opposition Benches? No. I call Danny Kruger.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), who gave a very good defence of the vaccine programme and of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. I respect that, but I regret his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who raised the point about medical expertise that casts some doubt on the vaccines. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington chose to smear all opponents of the vaccine programme. Of course there are lunatics out there who make absurd and outrageous claims, but there are many reasonable and respectable people who have anxieties about the vaccine programme, particularly people who have suffered as a result of the programme and their families.
I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch chairs. The APPG looks at vaccine injuries, and we had what I think was our first meeting last week in a Committee room in Portcullis House. I am afraid there were only a tiny handful of colleagues there, but well over a hundred members of the public attended, which is not the usual story for an APPG. I felt somewhat ashamed, on behalf of Parliament, that that was the first time that those members of the public—including families of the bereaved, who are themselves injured citizens—had had the opportunity to be in a room with members of this House, but I am very pleased that we are having this debate, and particularly pleased that there is an opportunity for members of the public to hear from the Minister on this topic.
I should say to members of the public who are watching that we have in Westminster Hall today a very good Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who is genuinely committed to health, including public health, and she showed a real interest in this topic and in the effect of covid policies when she was a Back-Bench MP.
Although many questions about our covid response need to be answered, the UK is by no means the worst offender. We are not Canada, New Zealand or China—places where Governments think they can exterminate covid by depriving their population of the most basic civil liberties. However, I am afraid that we still have many questions to ask ourselves, and even much to be ashamed of. I put on record that in hindsight I am particularly ashamed of my vote to dismiss care workers who did not want to receive the vaccine. I very much hope that the 40,000 care workers who lost their jobs can be reinstated, and indeed compensated. A group of us—including, I think, the Minister—held out against compulsory vaccination of health workers when that was proposed by the Government last winter. I think that resistance turned the tide, to a degree, on Government policy, and we emerged from the lockdowns more quickly than we might otherwise have done, yet we still have a policy of mass vaccination, which I want to query on behalf of constituents who have written to me about it.
My query starts with a simple point. In October 2020, when preparations were being made for the vaccine roll-out, Kate Bingham, the head of the vaccines agency, said:
“There’s going to be no vaccination of people under 18. It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable.”
Why was vaccination extended to the whole population? I do not think we have ever had a completely satisfactory answer to that question. I ask it again, because my concern is that extending the vaccination programme became an operation in public persuasion—an operation in which dissent was unhelpful or even immoral, and an operation that justified the suppression and even vilification of those who raised concerns.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Unlike any other vaccine, the covid vaccine was given to people who had natural immunity because they had provably contracted the virus. Why were those people vaccinated?
Danny Kruger
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best vaccine against covid is covid, and many people were naturally immune. There are questions to be asked about the effects of vaccination on the immune system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington made an understandable point about the importance of resisting misinformation. As I mentioned, there are certainly many crazy theories out there to which we need not give credence. If we are talking about a programme of vaccinating the population, it is important that the public are persuaded to do what the Government want them to do, so I understand why the Government should have a public health information campaign. However, it is an essential principle of medical ethics that people must be able to give informed consent before any treatment, and I worry about whether we can say that consent was fully informed in all cases.
Throughout, there has been misinformation in favour of the vaccine. I would not say that was deliberate; it was possibly accidental. We can tell that with hindsight. Perhaps the most egregious example was the claim that the vaccine is 95% effective; as was mentioned earlier, Dr Malhotra presented on this to the APPG last week. That figure refers simply to the relative risk, instead of the actual or absolute reduction in risk to an individual. The absolute risk reduction is really less than 1%.
There was also the widespread claim that the vaccine stops transmission, so people should take the jab to protect other people. We were all told that; we all believed that for many months. Last month, we heard from Pfizer that its vaccine was never tested to see whether it would stop transmission. Despite that, we had the notorious claim by Professor Chris Whitty that even though the vaccine brought no benefit to children, children should be vaccinated to protect wider society. I am all for thinking about society, not the individual, but that, again, feels like a profound break with medical ethics. A lot of people are asking what the vaccine does to children and young people, and Professor Whitty is right that the benefit to healthy children seems to be essentially nil.
There are genuine questions to be asked. I have not verified these questions; I merely ask them on behalf of my constituents. How do we explain the increase in the rates of myocarditis, heart attacks and excess deaths among young people? Indeed, across the general population, it is plausible, though not definitive, that the vaccine is responsible for more harms than we know about. As I said in my intervention, we know from the yellow card scheme that up to one in 200 hundred people vaccinated report an adverse reaction. That is bad enough in itself, but we also know that adverse effects are significantly under-reported through the yellow card scheme. Based on the MHRA’s research, there may be as many as 10 times more serious adverse reactions than the yellow card system shows.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important for the Minister to explain how people who say they have experienced damage from the vaccine can ensure that they are heard? There is the yellow card scheme, the module in the public inquiry, and people can apply for vaccine damage compensation, but there need to be more meaningful ways through which people can be engaged with on their experiences of damage.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to the hon. Lady—I absolutely agree. This is a very important moment in which the Minister can hear from Members speaking on behalf of their constituents. I encourage far greater engagement with citizens who have suffered from vaccine damage, or even lost loved ones to it.
There may be innocent explanations for the rather terrifying facts I have mentioned; I very much hope there are. If these are conspiracy theories, we need them to be comprehensively and courteously debunked.
To close, I have four questions for the Minister. First, will she review the vaccination of children? Children have strong naturally acquired immunity, and the chance of death from covid for a healthy child is one in 2 million. I believe we should follow other countries, such as Denmark, and stop vaccinating children altogether. I invite the Minister to review that aspect of the policy.
Secondly, will the Minister make representations in Government, and to Baroness Hallett, on broadening the terms of reference for her inquiry, so that they explicitly include the efficacy and safety of the vaccines? I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington says, and he is absolutely right: the inquiry terms of reference include mention of the vaccination programme and its effects. He may well be right that that is sufficient, and that the review will properly consider the topics that we are discussing. I hope so, but that needs to be made more explicit; I invite the Minister to comment on that.
Sir Christopher Chope
I wrote to Baroness Hallett, asking her to ensure that the terms of reference specifically covered the safety and impact of vaccines. As a result of representations, not just from me but from others, the terms of reference were amended to make it quite clear that vaccines, their impact and the potential damage done by them are included.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful for that clarification. It causes me concern to hear that it took my hon. Friend’s representations to ensure that the inquiry will consider the effect of the vaccines. We need to go further and talk about efficacy and safety, not just impact. We need to be explicit about what questions we want answers to. These issues need to be covered directly. We need the public inquiry to consider these matters, because of the compromised nature of medical regulation in our country. I mentioned that the MHRA is funded by the pharmaceutical companies that produce the drugs and vaccines that it regulates. There might be some universe in which that makes sense, but this is not it. I do not think that is right.
Thirdly, we need to do a lot more for the injured and bereaved, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) said. I agree with all the recommendations of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, and we will hear from him shortly on what needs to be done to raise the threshold for compensation for the injured, and the speed of payouts. I agree with him that we need clinics for people with adverse reactions, just as we do for people with long covid.
Finally, we need to change the power imbalance. I am sorry, on behalf of Parliament, that this is the first proper debate that we have had on this subject. I regret that victims and families have had to struggle so hard to get engagement of the system. I hope that the Minister agrees to meet some of the people here, and other representatives of families affected by the vaccines, for a proper exchange of information and ideas, and I hope that she will request that Dame June Raine of the MHRA meets them, rather than ignoring letters for months.
A new Government take over this week. I hope that the Minister, who was appointed only recently, will stay in post, and that we can start a new chapter in the story of covid. No more remote power telling people what to do. Let us put truth and justice back into public life, and restore trust in the experts on whom we rely.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
We should be all right for time, but bear in mind that three people wish to speak, and I need to start the wind-ups at 5.30 pm.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am, as was mentioned, the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage. The group is now up and running. We had an enormously well-supported meeting in Portcullis House last Thursday. I agree with the legitimate concerns of the 100,000-plus people who signed the petition, and share their belief that the recent data relating to cardiovascular problems, which is increasing in volume, is of enough concern to warrant an inquiry on safety. As I have said, the big Hallett inquiry on covid-19 will cover a lot of this ground, but it will not report for many years. In the meantime, people are being encouraged to have more and more boosters, and they understandably want to know the impact of those boosters on their health and the risks and rewards.
As well as being chairman of the APPG, I have taken an interest in the subject for about a year, and produced a private Member’s Bill on the subject, and I hope to produce another, which will have its Second Reading next month. Coroners up and down the country have found in their reports that deaths have been caused directly by covid 19 vaccines. I have spoken to some of the bereaved; indeed, I spoke to the gentleman referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden)—the gentleman who attended our meeting on Thursday, and whose wife was a journalist in Newcastle. I have seen with my own eyes the suffering of people who are bereaved or still suffering adverse reactions.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), in introducing the debate, did not have much to say about the people who we know have suffered death or serious injury as a result of the vaccines. My hon. Friend showed himself to be rather the victim of producer capture—the producer in this case being the MHRA. He does not seem to have allowed his researches to go further than the MHRA. Has he, for example, looked at what has been happening in Germany? The Paul Ehrlich Institute is the German regulator responsible for vaccine safety. On 20 July, the institute confirmed that one in 5,000 people was seriously affected after a vaccination. That also reflected a finding that it published earlier in the year, in which the institute tried to raise the alert that one in 5,000 vaccinated people experienced a serious side effect, such as heart muscle inflammation. It said that, statistically, every 10th person must expect a severe consequence from having a course of three or four vaccines. The institute uses the World Health Organisation definition of a “serious adverse event”, meaning one that results in hospitalisation or is life-threatening or life-changing. After a course of four doses, the risk of a report to its system of a serious adverse effect is one in 1,250. That is serious information coming from the regulator of a country that is highly respected for the quality of its healthcare.
Is it not interesting that the number of adverse reports referred to the institute is far fewer than the number of adverse reports that led to the 1976 swine flu vaccine being withdrawn? Some hon. Members may recall that, in 1976, the President of the United States, Gerald Ford, was panicked by swine flu into organising a vaccination campaign. When reports emerged of suspected adverse reactions, including heart attacks and Guillain-Barré syndrome, and there were 53 reported deaths, people began to worry about the safety of the vaccine. The Government halted that mass vaccination programme in December of that year. In that case, the Government acted on far fewer adverse events than we have talked about in this debate and decided that, given the balance of risk and reward, it was too risky to continue with the vaccination programme. Let us look at the facts and not just be beholden to the MHRA. If this were a debate about the MHRA, I would have masses of material on it.
The Government seem to be in denial about the risks of these vaccines. Only this morning, the deputy chief medical officer for England was on the radio saying that the boosters were perfectly safe and effective, but they are not perfectly safe, and there is a question about whether they are effective, but that is for another debate. The fact that they are not perfectly safe has now been admitted by the Government. Indeed, the UK Health Security Agency has issued “A guide to the COVID-19 autumn booster”—you may have seen a copy of it, Sir Roger. It requests that people get another booster from their GP. Unfortunately, the cover letter from the NHS makes no reference to any risks associated with the vaccine, but if one looks at the document included in the envelope, it talks about serious side effects. It says,
“Cases of inflammation of the heart (called myocarditis or pericarditis) have been reported very rarely after both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. These cases have been seen mostly in younger men and within several days of vaccination. Most of the people affected have felt better and recovered quickly following rest and simple treatments.”
It then states:
“You should seek medical advice”.
What it does not state is what happens to those people who do not recover. That is what I will concentrate on in the remainder of my remarks. Those people, if they are disabled to the extent of 60% or more, may be eligible for payments under the vaccine damage payment scheme. They might get £120,000. That scheme, however, is not fit for purpose, because its description of disability does not necessarily apply to autoimmune conditions such as those suffered as a consequence of covid-19 vaccine damage. And what about all of those people who are only 59% disabled? There is no financial help for them and, even more worryingly for many, no specific medical help.
The Government refuse to provide specialist help for these vaccine victims. Although they have set up long covid clinics, vaccine victims are being ignored. I have asked parliamentary questions about this, but I have not been able to get a satisfactory answer as to why there are no clinics for those victims of vaccine damage. As a result of the Government’s behaviour, victims are increasingly telling their loved ones, neighbours and friends about their circumstances, which is leading to a much lower rate applications for booster vaccines. That is happening because the Government cannot suppress the information that ordinary people are sharing with one another, even though there is very little on this topic in the mainstream media.
Many people now would not touch a booster with a bargepole, and I include myself among them. I am not anti-vax—I had my first two vaccines—but from all that I have seen and know about this, the increase in boosters is counterproductive for many and dangerous for some. We need to take into account what is happening on the ground. People are becoming increasingly vaccine-hesitant. Large numbers of doctors and health professionals are now calling for a complete halt to the vaccination programme because the risks outweigh the benefits.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The thing to understand is that there is a fundamental difference between these kinds of vaccines and vaccination per se. Vaccination per se has saved millions of lives here and elsewhere, but these vaccines are qualitatively different. Science matters, but much matters more.
Sir Christopher Chope
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the United States, they changed the definition of a vaccine. We have always understood a vaccine to mean someone receiving into their system something containing a small element of that which they were being vaccinated against, so that their system could react against it and protect them if they were later exposed to a large amount. But unlike those old vaccines, these vaccines do not use the raw material, so in many senses it is a misnomer to describe them as vaccines at all. That information is not really out there among the public any more than the fact that the booster vaccines have not been tested on humans at all during studies; they were tested only on mice. People are being used as victims for experimentation, and that is why they are getting worried.
Finally, Oracle Films’ film, “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion”, is available on YouTube—I make no apology for the fact that I participate in that film—and sets out a different view on the safety of these vaccines. I am not saying we should ban all covid-19 vaccines and have a complete halt. What I am saying is that there is an urgent need for the Government to get to grips with this issue before more people are duped into having vaccines that they probably do not need, that will not do them any good and that will present risks to their health.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Could I ask Mr Bridgen and Mrs Elphicke to confine their remarks to six minutes?
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will try to curtail my remarks to six minutes.
This is a hugely important debate and it is overdue. Those people who have questioned the efficacy or safety of the vaccines have generally been cut down and cancelled. That is why this is so important. I do not claim to be any sort of expert, but my degree a long time ago was in genetics, behaviour and biochemistry. Science works by challenge, and the science behind the vaccines has not been allowed to be challenged.
A study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, included 7,806 children aged five or younger who were followed for an average of 91.4 days after their first Pfizer vaccination. The study showed that one in 500 children under five years of age who received a Pfizer mRNA—messenger ribonucleic acid—covid vaccine were hospitalised with a vaccine injury, and one in 200 had symptoms ongoing for weeks or months afterwards. Will the Minister outline the Government’s current policy on vaccination and boosters, and our current policy for the vaccination of children?
Half a per cent. of the children—40 out of the 7,806—had symptoms that were still ongoing and of unknown significance at the end of the trial. That was during a two to four-month follow-up period, so 0.5% of the children had an adverse effect that lasted for weeks or months. In two cases, the symptoms were confirmed to have lasted longer than 90 days. Given that evidence, perhaps the Minister could explain why we are vaccinating healthy children who are at minimal risk from covid. Surely that is in breach of the Hippocratic oath to do no harm. We are not in a situation where we can ask young people to risk their lives to protect older people. In a civilised society, that cannot be the way it works.
According to The Independent in April, more than 1,200 claims have been made to the vaccine damages payment scheme, which entitles successful applicants to £120,000, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), if a causal link between vaccination and severe reaction culminating in injury or death is proven. Does the Minister recognise those figures? Sarah Moore, a lawyer who represents 95 families seeking claims, said that her clients felt “silenced and ignored”, adding that they cannot speak about vaccine harm or linked injuries without being accused of being anti-vax. What is the Minister’s view on victims being labelled as anti-vaxxers?
The Department of Health and Social Care commissions research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. There is £1.6 million that has been allocated for a programme to understand the rare condition of blood clotting with low platelets following vaccination for covid-19. Does the Minister think that is sufficient? Is there a sufficient breadth of investigation considering all the things we are finding out about the vaccines? Where is the cost-benefit analysis by age group for the vaccines, given the risks that they carry, especially as the pharma companies are now admitting that vaccination does not impact on transmission? Did the Government know, when they mandated vaccines for care and NHS workers, that the vaccines had not been tested to find whether they prevented transmission?
The Florida department of health conducted an analysis through a self-controlled case series, which is a technique originally developed to evaluate vaccine safety. The analysis found that there is an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males aged 18 to 39 within 28 days following messenger ribonucleic acid vaccination. With a higher level of global immunity to covid-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by that abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in that age group. The recommendation now in Florida is that they do not vaccinate any male under the age of 40.
Florida’s surgeon general, Dr Joseph Ladapo, said:
“Studying the safety and efficacy of any medications, including vaccines, is an important component of public health. Far less attention has been paid to safety and the concerns of many individuals have been dismissed—these are important findings that should be communicated to Floridians.”
I suggest that such important findings should be transmitted to everyone who has had a vaccine or is contemplating a booster. I also had the pleasure of meeting Dr Aseem Malhotra at the APPG launch last week. He made a very strong case for the idea that up to 90% of adverse vaccine reactions are not even being reported.
Finally—I wish I had longer to speak—what is the Government’s analysis of the excess deaths that we are suffering in this country, across Europe and in the Americas? Even a casual glance at the data shows a strong correlation between vaccine uptake and the excess deaths in those regions. Surely we must have an investigation. Tens of thousands more people than expected are dying. This is really important, and if we do not get it right, no one will believe us, and trust in politicians, in medicine and in our medical system will be lost. [Interruption.]
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. This important debate shows the importance of the petitions process in raising issues that it is essential to explore, even when they are contentious or do not reflect a majority view. The petition has attracted more than 200 signatures from my constituency. In addition, on behalf of my constituents, I have written to Health Ministers a number of times in relation to compensation and individual cases of harm.
The covid vaccine development—the sharing of intellectual property, know-how and scientific endeavour, the rapidity of the regulatory process, and the operational roll-out across the entire country—was truly remarkable. We should rightly be proud of everything that was done to stop the covid pandemic in its tracks. However, we are now a considerable way on since the development of the vaccine, and some sort of ongoing vaccination programme is expected to continue. The dust has now settled, but concerns about a number of medical, regulatory and ethical issues persist, as has been set out.
Constituents have raised with me their considered and researched concerns about their experiences, including variations in the menstrual cycle; the long-term impact on fertility—whether people can have children—cardiovascular concerns; muscle issues, including carpal tunnel syndrome; the triggering of serious autoimmune responses, and much more besides. In the past, concerns about the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination, for example, had an adverse impact on take-up before they could be fully allayed, but it is also true that authorised and regulated drugs have caused immeasurable harm and have had to be withdrawn.
It seems that concerns about the vaccine process have been mounting, and they must be considered and addressed, not ignored, if we are to continue to ensure widespread support for a national vaccination programme and confidence in such important drugs. Are the Government considering, accepting and addressing those concerns?
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I commend the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on moving the motion, and I thank all those who signed the petition, including 119 of my Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill constituents. I also thank Members for their thought-provoking contributions to the debate, which I am happy to attend to outline my party’s position on the safety of covid-19 vaccines.
The covid vaccine has saved millions of lives, not just here in the UK but across the world. In the first year of the vaccination programme, 19.8 million out of a potential 31.4 million covid-19 deaths were prevented worldwide, according to estimates based on excess deaths from 185 countries and territories. In Scotland alone, the vaccine saved almost 28,000 lives; that is, an estimated 86% of potential deaths were prevented in Scotland as a result of the vaccination uptake. Thousands of people in Scotland are still alive today because of the coronavirus vaccines. Dr Jim McMenamin, the director of health protection infection services at Public Health Scotland, said:
“This important study shows that thanks to high vaccine uptake among the people of Scotland, and early implementation, the COVID-19 vaccination programme is estimated to have saved more than 27 thousand lives”.
Despite that, there has been a significant increase in heart attacks and related illnesses since the covid-19 vaccinations started to be distributed in 2021. To determine whether there is any connection with the covid-19 roll-out, the Government must conduct an immediate and complete scientific investigation, and ensure that the prescribed medical interventions of their response to coronavirus are indeed safe. As we know, every vaccine used in the UK is subject to approval by the independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The vaccination programme has always been guided by the expert advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.
This year, the Scottish Government are looking to maximise the co-administration of boosters and flu vaccines, drawing on learning from previous winter vaccination campaigns. I myself will take my booster—on top of the three vaccinations that I have already taken—when I am called to do so. After consideration and discussion with my 14-year-old daughter, she informed me that she will also take her booster when the time comes. Everybody should be able to do so. Everybody eligible for a covid-19 vaccination in Scotland will also be invited for a flu vaccine, and can safely receive both vaccines at the same time and at the same appointment.
The clinical trials of the vaccines have shown them to be effective and acceptably safe. However, as part of its statutory functions, the MHRA continuously monitors the use of vaccines to ensure that their benefits continue to outweigh any risks. For example, during the pandemic, vaccines for pregnant women were initially suggested to be a risk, but the MHRA reassured the public then, as it does now. Its advice remains that the covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective during pregnancy and breastfeeding, and there is substantial evidence to support that advice.
Andrew Bridgen
The hon. Gentleman may not be aware, but contradictory evidence was issued on two separate days. One piece of advice said that pregnant and breastfeeding women could have the vaccine, and then another Government body said that that was not safe and that it did not recommend it.
Steven Bonnar
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am sure that, no matter which subject we discuss, there will be pros and cons, and arguments for and against. We believe in the institutions that govern our health in Scotland, and we believe that they will make the right advice available to all our constituents.
More than 11 billion jabs have been administered so far. Johns Hopkins University puts global deaths related to covid-19 at 6.5 million. Although the vast majority of vaccinations do not result in serious adverse effects, there will of course be a small number of incidents in which there are serious problems. Those must be fully investigated. We believe that vaccination is the best course of action, because the danger of injury from coronavirus significantly outweighs the chance of harm from vaccines. It is a cruel truth that some people will experience some adverse effects, including disability and death. We know that a grieving person whose partner passed away recently as a result of the AstraZeneca vaccine has now received the first payout under the UK’s compensation mechanism. We must recognise the significance of that. There are severe, legitimate claims of harm from the jag, and they must be respected and listened to. That is vital to maintain faith in the UK’s vaccine programme now and in the future. As those who claim make clear, making claims is not about being anti-vaccine. The concerns are legitimate, and we must listen and learn.
The Scottish Government have set up an independent Scottish covid-19 inquiry to provide scrutiny on the handling of the pandemic and to learn important lessons. The input of bereaved families has been fundamental in developing the Scottish inquiry’s terms of reference, and the Scottish Government are committed to engaging with them. That will be long-lasting. The terms of reference provide adequate breadth for the inquiry to consider the elements that came through strongly in stakeholder engagement. It will be up to the new chair, when appointed, to decide how to investigate the issues listed in the terms of reference. It should not be assumed that a topic or group will be excluded from consideration simply because it is not explicitly referred to.
Following consultation with all the devolved Governments, the UK inquiry’s terms of reference include a number of areas of particular interest to the devolved Governments. The Scottish Government look forward to engaging fully with the UK inquiry to identify the lessons that we all need to learn.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I, too, commend the way the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) opened the debate, and I thank him for his candid support for the vaccine programme.
At the start of September, we had a debate in this very Chamber about the covid-19 vaccine damage payment scheme. I want to begin my speech in the same way as I started my speech in that debate, by saying that the covid-19 vaccine is safe and effective and has saved countless lives. I and the entire shadow Health and Social Care team remain extraordinarily grateful to those who sacrificed countless hours to facilitate our vaccine roll-out.
We are here debating this petition because of the vaccine. Without it, we would probably still be dialling in from our homes—me in Denton, frantically trying to sort my dodgy wi-fi and battling my dog for custody of the study chair. Some 51 million people have been fully vaccinated, and more than 151 million doses have been given in the United Kingdom. Without the vaccine and the extraordinary work of scientists, volunteers and NHS staff, we would not have been able to reclaim the liberties that we were forced to forfeit over the course of the pandemic.
Members from across the House will be aware that all vaccines go through rigorous and ongoing testing procedures. The covid-19 vaccines went through several stages of clinical trials before being approved, and met strict independent standards for safety, quality and effectiveness.
Andrew Bridgen
Surely the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the much-publicised interview of a Pfizer representative by a committee of the European Parliament only a couple of weeks ago, when they admitted that they had done no testing whatever to see whether the vaccination prevented transmission of the virus.
Andrew Gwynne
Yes, I heard that. Of course, the issue is that we were protecting the lives of those people who needed the vaccine to be able to get on with their day-to-day lives. The covid vaccines did go through several stages of clinical trials before approval and, as I am sure the Minister will make clear in her response, the MHRA continues to monitor the use of the vaccines to ensure that their benefits outweigh any risks. That is an important fact.
Sir Christopher Chope
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but if the vaccines were so safe, why was it necessary for the vaccine manufacturers to seek an indemnity against liability for negligence from the Government and the taxpayer?
Andrew Gwynne
I suspect that they wanted those assurances because of the rapidity of the roll-out. There is an ongoing process of testing the vaccines. These things are kept under review all the time by the scientists, the Government and the Department of Health and Social Care.
As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, the MHRA operates the yellow card scheme to collect and monitor information on suspected safety concerns. A dedicated team of scientists review information daily to monitor the vaccine roll-out. For this reason, His Majesty’s Opposition and I do not view the ask of this petition—a public inquiry into covid-19 vaccine safety—as necessary.
Serious vaccine side effects are extremely rare, and catching covid-19 without vaccine protection remains overwhelmingly more dangerous than getting the vaccine itself. Where vaccine damage does tragically occur, it is right that individuals and their families can access the vaccine damage payment scheme, which I spoke at length about in September. We must ensure that this scheme remains fit for the future. I did raise some concerns about that in the previous Westminster Hall debate on this issue, because it is important that those who are eligible can access financial support.
The petition claims that there has been
“a significant increase in heart attacks and related health issues since the roll-out of the covid-19 vaccines began in 2021.”
I appreciate the strength of feeling of those who signed this petition, and I do want to understand more from the Minister about any investigations being undertaken by the health authorities and scientists.
Andrew Bridgen
Was the shadow Minister not listening to my speech? The report in Florida showed an 84% increase in deaths from cardiac arrest in men between the ages of 18 and 39.
Andrew Gwynne
I was indeed listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He should have let me finish the sentence, because I was saying that I want to understand from the Minister what investigations are being undertaken by health authorities to ascertain whether this is actually the case, because there is conflicting information.
The hon. Gentleman talks about a study in Florida. It is important that we take into account all the information from across the globe. There is no data in this country from Office for National Statistics, the MHRA or any other public health body that actually backs that up. Therefore, it is important that all this data is kept under review and scrutinised. I think it is important that the Minister gives us assurances that that is being done.
As the Government made clear in their response to the petition, there have been rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis. That has informed product information advice for healthcare professionals and patients, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) pointed out. However, it is worth reenforcing just how rare these specific adverse reactions are. Across all vaccines used in the UK, there has been a reporting rate of just 0.01% for myocarditis and pericarditis. Even where this side effect has occurred, most cases have been mild and individuals have recovered.
There is an awful lot of misinformation regarding vaccine efficacy and safety, and it is vital that any debate about vaccine safety is led by the facts. Could the Minister set out what action she will be taking to tackle vaccine misinformation and to provide accurate reassurance to those who remain hesitant? How will she get robust data out there for proper and effective public scrutiny, so that we can reinforce that efficacy?
I hear a lot in my capacity as shadow Public Health Minister about concerns relating to yellow card reports. To that I reiterate the MHRA guidance, which clearly states:
“Many suspected ADRs reported on a yellow card do not have any relation to the vaccine or medicine”.
The yellow card reporting scheme allows individuals and health professionals to report any suspected reactions or side-effects, even if the reporter is not sure that they were caused by the vaccine. It is often the case that events recorded via the yellow card scheme would have happened anyway.
I feel passionately about tackling vaccine misinformation head-on, because the truth is that we are not in a position to be complacent. In the UK, people are still dying because they have not been vaccinated, and uptake among certain communities is still far too low, but the challenge is also global. More than 20 nations across the world have first-dose vaccine rates of lower than 20%. In Burundi, just 0.2% of people have received their first dose. The United Kingdom has an important role to play in ensuring that low-income countries can access vaccines, but also in making the argument, domestically and on the world stage, that vaccines are safe and effective. That will ensure that we remain better protected not only against covid-19 and potential mutations, but against future pandemics, where trust is a key tool in protecting people and communities across the globe.
This has been an important and wide-ranging debate, and one that I am glad we were able to facilitate. We in this House may have different views on this subject, but we also have a responsibility to protect the health of the people we represent, and that means using our platforms to make it clear that covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective—something that I am sure the Minister will wholeheartedly agree with.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Caroline Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for his kind words regarding the covid vaccine programme, and for bringing this important and timely debate to the House. It is timely because we started the covid-19 boosters autumn scheme just a few weeks ago.
Before I respond to the points that have been made in the debate and try to answer all the questions posed by right hon. and hon. Members, I thank Members—particularly those on the Opposition Benches, including the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar)—for their support for the vaccine scheme. I also thank each and every person in the country who has come forward for their jabs, as well as the tens of thousands of NHS staff and volunteers who made that happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked why the vaccine programme had worked so well. It worked so well because of the dedication and hard work of all who were involved in it—from the Government to the NHS, and from the volunteers to pharma. I was honoured to volunteer alongside people from my local area as young as 15 and as old as in their 80s. It was truly a community effort.
The take-up of the covid-19 vaccine has been huge, and over 151 million vaccines have been delivered in the UK, meaning that more than 90% of people aged 12 and over have received at least one dose and more than 40 million have received a booster or third dose. We have also made a great start to the autumn booster campaign. Since the start of the campaign on 5 September, more than 10 million people in England have stepped forward for their jabs.
Our safe and effective vaccines have underpinned the Government’s strategy for living with covid-19. They have allowed the economy and society to reopen, and the country’s ability to live with the virus in the future will continue to depend on deeper and broader population immunity. Critically, they have also reduced the pressure on the national health service and allowed us to start to tackle the elective care backlog.
Vaccines remain our biggest line of defence as we head into a challenging winter period. Vaccinated people are less likely to get seriously ill with covid-19 or seasonal flu, or to be admitted to hospital, and there is also evidence that they are less likely to pass the virus on to others. We know the covid vaccine has saved tens of thousands of lives—that is tens of thousands of mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters who are thankfully still with us.
Andrew Bridgen
Is the Minister aware that excess deaths run somewhere—there are two different sets of figures—between 18,000 and 25,000 this year alone?
Dr Johnson
I am referring to the covid vaccine, which has saved hundreds of thousands of lives. I take my hon. Friend’s point, but there is no evidence that those deaths were caused by the covid vaccine. Let me acknowledge and pass on my sympathies to the very small number of people for whom vaccines may not have worked as intended, and who may have suffered an adverse reaction from vaccines.
I turn to vaccine safety. All vaccines used in the UK covid-19 vaccine programme are safe. In the UK we have some of the highest safety standards in the world. The MHRA is globally recognised for high standards of quality, safety and medicines regulation. Each covid-19 vaccine candidate is assessed by teams of scientists and clinicians on a case-by-case basis. There are extensive checks and balances at every stage of vaccine development. It is only once each potential vaccine has met robust standards of effectiveness, safety and quality set by the MHRA that it will be approved for use.
It is also important to stress that the surveillance of vaccine safety and adverse reactions does not stop once a vaccine has been approved. The MHRA and the UK Health Security Agency constantly review a wide range of available data on the safety of vaccines, including UK and international reports of adverse reactions.
Sir John Hayes
People outside the House will not know that although the Minister has been in her job a relatively short time, she is a remarkably dedicated and diligent person. No Minister is more likely or determined than she is to get to the facts when looking at the international data. Will the Minister give the assurance that she will consider all the information available, including that international data, when she draws conclusions about the content of this debate and the cases that have been made by many of my constituents and others?
Dr Johnson
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words. I will, of course, look at all the evidence. He is aware of my experience as a clinician and he knows that I will look at the evidence-based medical process.
As part of the surveillance into currently used medicines and vaccines, the MHRA continues to review all the suspected adverse drug reaction reports—known as the yellow card reports—relating to covid vaccines, which right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned. Through the MHRA yellow card scheme, members of the public and healthcare professionals can report any suspected side effects. A comprehensive surveillance strategy alerts us to any unforeseen adverse reactions to the vaccine, to enable us to act swiftly when required.
In April 2021, we quickly responded to reports of extremely rare cases of concurrent thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following vaccination with the first dose of AstraZeneca. At that point, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation advised that adults under 30 without underlying health issues should be offered an alternative vaccine to the AstraZeneca if one was available. That was later extended in May 2021 to adults under 40 without underlying health issues. The MHRA, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) said, has undertaken a thorough review of UK reports of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia. While the estimated incident rate has increased over time as awareness of the condition increases across the healthcare system, the number of cases remains extremely low, given that more than 49 million doses of AstraZeneca covid-19 vaccine have been administered.
A number of colleagues asked about myocarditis. There is no evidence that people are at an increased risk of cardiac arrest in the days and weeks following the vaccine. The risk of getting myocarditis or pericarditis after the vaccine remains very low. A large study of 4 million vaccinated people in Denmark, published in the British Medical Journal, found that there were no deaths or diagnoses of heart failure in people who were diagnosed with myocarditis or pericarditis after being vaccinated.
In the highest-risk group, those aged 18 to 29, until the end of September this year there were 29 cases for every million second Pfizer doses and 68 cases for every million second Moderna doses given in the UK. The risk is much lower after a booster dose, and in other age groups the risk is lower still. However, it is worth remembering that catching covid-19 can significantly increase the risk of cardiac arrest and death, and the risk of developing myocarditis. There are an estimated 1,500 cases of myocarditis per million patients with covid—far greater than the risk of myocarditis following vaccination.
Let me turn now to some of the questions that have been asked. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about the inquiry and how people would be able to contribute to it. It will listen to and consider carefully the experiences of bereaved families and others who have suffered loss as a result of the pandemic. It will not consider individual cases; instead, listening to such accounts will inform its understanding of the impact of the pandemic and the response, and any lessons to be learned. Individuals will be able to engage through the inquiry’s listening exercise and the details of that will be brought forward in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) asked about informed consent. Indeed, I think that he produced the leaflet that provides the information that allows people to understand that the JCVI has recommended the vaccine because on balance it is beneficial to people; it is more likely to be of benefit to them than harm. Equally, however, each individual will be provided with information about the vaccine, as they are with all medical treatments, so that they know the benefits they can expect and the risk of side effects, however small, as well as what they are. As I say, he produced an example in the debate of a leaflet containing such information. What is important is that people are aware of the benefits and risks and can make informed decisions. Vaccination is not compulsory, but we are aware that it is of great benefit to the population and to individuals at risk of covid.
Sir Christopher Chope
What happens if somebody suffers a 50% disability as a result of having the vaccine, through an adverse reaction, or an unusual event? What do the Government do to help that person? They do not provide any compensation, or any special help through the health service, or a clinic, so what do they do?
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is talking about the vaccine damage payment scheme, which has been running since 1979 and provides a payment of up to £120,000—a tax-free lump sum, a one-off payment—for people who have been severely damaged by vaccines, on the balance of probabilities, which is determined when people apply. That does not prejudice any claim that they may have in a legal sense and they can still pursue a civil claim should they wish to do so. It has been asked whether there should be a separate scheme for covid, but of course it is right that all vaccines are treated in a similar fashion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) asked a few questions. He asked about the terms of reference of the inquiry being a matter for the chair, which indeed they are. He also asked whether I would commit the chair of the MHRA to meet specific people, but that is not for me to decide; it is up to the chair. My hon. Friend’s other question was about children’s vaccines. He is aware of my thoughts on that: it is important when we vaccinate children that the vaccines are of benefit to the child themselves. I am aware that when the vaccine was approved that was the decision made by all four chief medical officers and it is very important that the Government listen to and take medical advice. Since then, some things have changed. Natural immunity is more widespread and school disruption is no longer an issue. I understand that very shortly, at its next meeting, the JCVI will consider whether children’s vaccines should continue to be recommended, on the basis of the current situation. I think it is right that medical research is reviewed regularly as it becomes available and is taken into account.
The position of the MHRA remains that for most people the benefits of the covid-19 vaccine continue to outweigh the risks. The surveillance strategy is working, as we have discussed. We are able to respond quickly to ensure safe administration of all covid vaccines. I reiterate that the public should be very confident that all tests are completed to the very highest standards and that vaccines are safe.
Despite the progress we have made, we must not become complacent.
Sir Christopher Chope
Would the Minister be willing to address the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage in a private meeting, so that she can hear at first hand some of the concerns that members have?
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He will be aware of events today and I will at least have to see whether I remain in post before I potentially commit somebody else to such an event.
As I was saying, despite the progress we have made, we must not become complacent. We cannot risk an increase in serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths from covid. The UKHSA estimates that vaccinations had averted up to 128,000 deaths and 262,000 hospitalisations by the end of September 2021, and many more since then.
We must do everything in our power to protect those who are most vulnerable to the virus and keep pressure off the NHS in a tough winter period. Viruses such as covid-19 spread much more easily in winter when we socialise indoors. To protect those most at risk and help to reduce pressure on the NHS, we are delivering an autumn booster dose to those who are most in need of an extra layer of protection. Even if someone has had all of their jabs so far, and perhaps had covid too, they might still need an autumn booster to strengthen their protection. I encourage everyone who is eligible to come forward for their covid booster and seasonal flu jab today. To encourage vaccination against covid and flu and boost uptake, the NHS is making every effort to make it as convenient as possible for individuals to take up the offer, including offering both covid and flu vaccines at the same time, where possible, to reduce the number of appointments needed. Our NHS staff and volunteers are pulling out all the stops to deliver the next phase of the covid vaccine programme at speed once again, with more than 3,000 sites up and down the country involved.
The NHS was the first healthcare system in the world to deliver a covid-19 vaccine outside clinical trials, and it is now the first to deliver the new, variant-busting vaccine. Bivalent vaccines target two different strains of covid-19. They will give us a broader immunity and therefore potentially improve protection against variants of the virus. Whatever vaccine people receive in the autumn booster programme, they can be assured that it remains effective in preventing severe disease against all current variants and any potential future variants.
As I draw to a close, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington for bringing this important debate to the House at such an important time. The Government have already commissioned a public inquiry into the pandemic, and covid vaccines will be reviewed as part of that inquiry. There are no plans for an inquiry solely on vaccine safety. We face a tough winter ahead, and collectively we must do everything we can to protect those who are most vulnerable and to reduce pressure on the NHS. I encourage everyone who is eligible to step forward for their covid and flu vaccines as soon as they are able.
Elliot Colburn
It is unusual to be in this place and be lambasted by colleagues, but I make no apology for looking out for the health and wellbeing of my constituents. I completely agree with the sentiments raised throughout the course of the debate. We have to do more, and I urge the Minister to look into what more we can do for those who are adversely affected. I will not apologise for not allowing that to be a gateway that allows vaccine misinformation to come into the mainstream.
Some people have said that the debate is overdue. I hastened to remind colleagues in my opening remarks that there have been four of these Petitions Committee debates, let alone the Backbench Business debates and private colleagues who have come forward to ask for debates. This is not overdue; it has happened plenty of times. We have given a lot of parliamentary time to this. Yes, there is more that we can and must do for those who suffer harm, but it is worth reiterating that the system for approving and monitoring vaccines is robust, the inquiry exists already and vaccines are a great British success story. It was a Brit who discovered vaccines in the way that we know them today, and they have been effective in tackling a range of illnesses that would previously have been life-threatening or very dangerous indeed. The proof is that they work, they are saving lives and they protect us and others. I join the Minister in urging people to come forward for their vaccines this winter, to help to protect themselves and others and ensure the strain on our NHS is as minimal as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 602171, relating to the safety of covid-19 vaccines.
Human Rights Legislation Reform
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 607712, relating to human rights legislation reform.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. More than 230,000 people have signed this petition, including 283 people from my own constituency of Blackpool South. It is obvious why a petition on human rights has been incredibly popular and gained such widespread support.
This country has always been a leading champion of human rights, democracy and freedoms internationally and possesses a proud history stretching all the way back to Magna Carta in 1215. This has progressed, and rightly so, to a huge number of rights across all aspects of life and society to provide people with freedom of expression and a right to education and safety in the workplace, among many other things.
However, there is increasingly a perception that the current “rights culture” is contrary to common sense and flies in the face of the original purpose behind the various pieces of legislation. In some cases that has provided a platform for criminals hoping to escape punishment or delay and frustrate natural justice.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Scott Benton
I will make some progress. The creator of this e-petition stated that he did not want any changes to the Human Rights Act 1998 because he was concerned that people’s human rights would be less respected. I do not believe for one second that that would be the case. Reforms to the Human Rights Act would bring clarity to the currently opaque human rights standards, specifically those imported and adopted from the European convention on human rights. It is important to note that that does not mean reduced rights for people at home. Any update to the Human Rights Act should not seek to scrap people’s fundamental human rights, and any update to the Act should retain the ECHR and its original principles. However, we must ensure that the Human Rights Act and its interpretations are not used to undermine the desired will of the public or that of our democratically elected Parliament.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Does the hon. Member see any role for the protection of minority rights under the Human Rights Act and the ECHR?
Scott Benton
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her intervention. If she will wait a few moments, I will cover that. Of course, all aspects of human rights should be covered within our provisions and protections, but there should be a balance between protecting those rights and allowing the Government to ensure that national security issues are protected at the same time.
The British people rightly believe that they should be subject to British law, made by British lawmakers for whom they have voted and by British judges. This Government were elected in 2019 on a manifesto that promised to update the Human Rights Act to ensure a proper balance among the rights of individuals, our national security and effective government.
Margaret Ferrier
One of the aims of the legislation is to prevent trivial human rights claims wasting judges’ time and taxpayer money. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have not yet evidenced that that is enough of a widespread issue to risk watering down the rights of citizens across the UK for nominal financial savings?
Scott Benton
The hon. Lady will be aware that the Government are actively considering that. To be entirely honest, I wish the Government had moved ahead on the issue at different points over the past 12 months, but we have had consultations and things that rightly need to be considered in the round. Today we have a new Prime Minister. It will be up to him and his team to set out the new direction forward. I am sure those comments will be reported back to the Department by the Minister. The overreaching ECHR is tipping the balance away from national security and effective border controls in favour of serious criminals and terrorists who are abusing the legislation to avoid deportation. Various ECHR articles have been expanded beyond their original intention. What most frustrates me and the residents of Blackpool is the expansion of article 8 on the right to respect for private and family life, which serious criminals are using to make mockery of our broken asylum system.
In 2020, the Strasbourg court made the controversial decision to allow a Nigerian national who was sentenced to four years in prison for drug offences and had a conviction for battery to remain in the UK on health grounds. That has set the dangerous precedent that if the state wishes to deport an individual, it must be able to show that, when compared with the NHS, the healthcare to which the individual would be entitled in their own country would not significantly impact on their life chances. That is obviously an unrealistically high bar to meet.
In a second case, another convicted drug dealer used article 8 on the right to family life despite assaulting his partner and making no child maintenance contributions whatsoever—what complete and utter irony! The absurd list goes on and on. More than 70% of successful deportation appeals are now based solely on article 8.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am a little confused by the hon. Gentleman’s speech, and I wonder whether the 230,000 who have signed the petition would think that they were listening to the right debate. I thought he said that he wishes to remain in the ambit of the European convention on human rights, and therefore of the Court—I think that that is Government policy as of last week—but he now seems to be arguing against that. Where exactly does he stand?
Scott Benton
I am far from a legal expert, but there is a middle way between protecting people’s fundamental human rights and continuing to enshrine the ECHR in British law, and ensuring that the Government have wiggle room so that serious foreign national offenders can be deported and our asylum system is not overtly abused. Of course, that is the subject of the Government’s ongoing consultation. I look forward to the Government, and far more experienced legal minds than me, finding a way through that minefield.
We cannot fix a broken asylum system until we reform the Human Rights Act. Someone who wants to claim asylum should go through the correct procedure, under which the UK has a number of safe and legal routes. However, 28,000 people illegally crossed the channel in small boats last year, and 75% of them were men between the ages of 18 and 39. Although asylum claims should be processed within six months, many claimants do not hear back within that time, and the appeals process can take many years. Frankly, the residents of my Blackpool constituency are fed up of seeing the asylum system being abused and of the time it takes to deport those who come here, which lengthens year after year.
Simplifying the system, ensuring that claimants demonstrate that they have been materially disadvantaged before they can make a claim and strengthening the emphasis on societal impacts such as criminal behaviour will help to protect our national security and save the taxpayers’ money that is spent in the courts system and on costs associated with accommodating and supporting asylum seekers who have pending applications.
The Human Rights Act received Royal Assent in 1998 and came into force in 2000. Tony Blair’s aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the ECHR, which took effect in 1953, but after such a long time, the Human Rights Act could not have foreseen the incredibly complex challenges that we face today. It is absolutely right that the Government review that Act with a focus on the modern era, while reinforcing the primacy of UK law and protecting the fundamental freedoms that we all enjoy.
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
I welcome the petition and I congratulate those who organised and signed it. It requests that the proposed reform of the Human Rights Act be withdrawn. However, that demand appears to have been somewhat overtaken by events, so the first question to ask is whether the petitioners’ objectives remain valid. As we know, politics moves pretty quickly, and the proposed reforms have been withdrawn. The Prime Minister ditched the plans for a new Bill of Rights on 7 September. The papers were briefed that Ministers were deeply concerned about the drafting of the Bill. It was pulled just five days before its Second Reading, soon after the Justice Secretary had himself been sacked.
At the time—precisely six weeks and five days ago—the Prime Minister told the Cabinet that her Government would reassess ways to deliver this agenda. Note that she said that she disagreed not with the objectives of the withdrawn legislation, but rather with the method of their implementation. Fast forward to last week: six weeks and two days after the Prime Minister took office, the Conservative party reassessed her ability to deliver her own agenda and unceremoniously ditched her. That leaves human rights reform up in the air.
So is the petition still valid? I think it most certainly is, because the proposed Bill was in the last Conservative manifesto, and as far as I can work out it has been in successive Conservative manifestos since 2010. Indeed, despite withdrawing the draft legislation, the present Prime Minister supported such a Bill when she was Justice Secretary. I assume that the new leader—the Prime Minister unveiled this week, and the next Leader of the Opposition—will in turn pledge to establish the legal supremacy of the UK Supreme Court so that UK courts can disregard rulings from the ECHR. Therefore, despite the Prime Minister ditching the Bill, the issues contained in the petition remain highly relevant and valid.
We can confidently assume that, despite the Conservative party and the Government disintegrating before us, the party is still intent on reforming the Human Rights Act—perhaps one of the few things that unites its different factions. Therefore, the petition’s objective that the Government must not
“make any changes to the Human Rights Act, especially ones that dilute people’s human rights in any circumstances, make the Government less accountable, or reduce people’s ability to make human rights claims”
remains highly relevant. Despite the fact that the Bill has been axed, those issues will not go away, and they therefore deserve to be debated.
We do not really acknowledge the true significance of the proposed human rights reforms. Let me give hon. Members a brief example. The contents of the last Queen’s Speech, on 10 May—it seems like ages ago—were widely described as a damp squib, reflecting a Government who had run out of ideas:
“a party without a project”,
to quote a Guardian editorial. I thought at the time that such an interpretation was slightly wrong. Simply seeing the Queen’s Speech as an incoherent, aimless collection of 38 Bills, symptomatic of an inert, drifting Government, misread what was going on. Such a misreading is important, because it suggests that there was little to see here, and therefore little obligation to contest it and provide an alternative.
Probably the most radical element of the Queen’s Speech, which will be debated tomorrow, is the Brexit freedoms Bill—an extraordinary piece of legislation entailing the wholesale dismantling of domestic law through the constitutionally outrageous use of sunset and Henry VIII clauses. I thought at the time that the Bill of Rights was almost a constitutional companion piece to that piece of legislation. Axing the Human Rights Act would dramatically reset our strategic international position and the rights and freedoms afforded to British citizens. Acknowledging the radical character of those initiatives in the last Queen’s Speech poses many challenges and opportunities for my party, in terms of what we stand for and what we would do.
Margaret Ferrier
The Scottish Government have been clear that they oppose this legislation and would invite Holyrood to oppose it too. That means that if the UK Government pushed ahead, they would be showing a disregard for devolution. Does the hon. Gentleman share the concerns of those living across the UK that their rights are potentially being stripped away without consent?
Jon Cruddas
I will come to that when I mention different approaches to economic and social rights, which should be the cornerstone of an alternative approach to a new Bill of Rights in the UK. That goes with the grain of what is happening in Scotland, in contrast to the objectives of the present Government in Westminster. To put it charitably, the Government are a total shambles, and even compared to early September, the possibility of a Labour Government is more likely. It would be useful to find out what Labour’s approach is to reform of the HRA, for instance, whether it would seek to defend the present Act or offer its own alternative Bill of Rights.
The Conservative reform of human rights, which will reappear, cannot be discussed without acknowledging the international context in which it occurs. When set against an international backdrop of war and escalating authoritarianism, the proposed human rights reform suggests a country withdrawing from our international obligations and democratic oversight, both abroad and at home. That is not an accident. The Government have stated a wish to comply with the human rights convention, but they would also seek to mandate our judges to disregard some of its most basic principles and protections. Those include the so-called positive obligations on public bodies to investigate crime and wrongdoing. These are precisely the methods that produced remedies for the victims of the black cab rapist, John Worboys, alongside a range of other cases providing justice for victims—most famously through the Hillsborough inquiry—and a series of cases of justice for soldiers, including the case at Deepcut.
The reform would likely see more cases going to Strasbourg, not less, and would once again expand the power of the Executive, which would be more free to rule by regulation and restrict the interpretive power of the courts. When Europe and the world are crying out for international leadership and solidarity, our Government appear to be running in the opposite direction. We might assume that it is was only the likes of Russia, Poland and Hungary that cynically remained in treaties, such as the human rights convention, while corroding them from within. What I find truly extraordinary is to think that in 2023, the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights—partly crafted by British lawyers—the Government planned to axe the Human Rights Act, the direct descendant of that convention, which sought to unite countries after fascism, authoritarianism and genocide.
Winston Churchill would arguably be turning in his grave. In his opening speech to the Congress of Europe in May 1948, Churchill said that the new Europe must be
“a positive force, deriving its strength from our sense of common spiritual values. It is a dynamic expression of democratic faith based upon moral conceptions and inspired by a sense of mission. In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.”
That statement, 75 years on, has a contemporary feel to it, as authoritarianism and fascism are once again on the march, threatening the foundations of liberal democracy.
While I am glad to see that the legislation has been withdrawn, it comes with one downside. The Government’s withdrawn attempt to deny rights to the British people, wrapped up in the almost Orwellian language of a new Bill of Rights, did offer opportunities for opponents to build a coalition around an alternative, rather than simply defend the status quo. It would be a radical new Bill of Rights that builds on the Human Rights Act rather than dismantles it, and one that might echo themes from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s vision of a second Bill of Rights in 1944, which informed the universal declaration of human rights.
Such an alternative Bill of Rights might include the right to work, to free education, to access to public health, to housing, to security for all and to freedom from fear. If Labour rethinks its whole approach to modern citizenship, I like to think that could be part of a radical levelling-up agenda. It would be a new democratic and economic covenant between the state and its citizens, one that is aligned with Administrations in Scotland and Wales, which are also seeking to build such an agenda. It would not only honour the Good Friday agreement’s commitment to the human rights convention, but would be in keeping with the long-term quest for a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland. That offers a different type of radicalism to that of the Queen’s Speech, and the ditched attempts to attack our human rights, alongside the desire to consolidate power within the Executive and strip away access to justice.
In conclusion, my basic point is a simple one: the last Queen’s Speech was no damp squib. Reform of the Human Rights Act is a big deal that should be challenged. Thinking that there is little to see here concedes too much ground, and reinforces the political groupthink that underplays the radical character of this Government and their potential to isolate us, diminish our international standings, consolidate long-term economic weaknesses and enduring patterns of inequality, and hand over even greater powers to the Executive. There is plenty to see here. It deserves a radical alternative. The Human Rights Act, as it currently exists, protects all of us; we lose it at our peril. It is essential that we are allowed to challenge public authorities when they get it wrong. The Human Rights Act has changed many lives for the better. It must be protected and built on, and not subject to reforms that reduce its scope and limit what people can rely on it for. This debate will endure. That is why the petition before us retains its significance and should be warmly welcomed.
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
I do not wish to impose a time limit at the moment, but I will call the SNP spokesperson at around 7 pm.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue, and to have the opportunity to debate this important petition.
I will start from the basic principle that the Government and the Conservative party have always been firmly committed to our adherence to the European convention on human rights. For some of us, that is absolutely non-negotiable and fundamental, and rightly so because historically it has been a largely British-driven instrument. British common law traditions have actually greatly developed both the convention itself and the development of the Strasbourg Court’s jurisprudence.
It is worth bearing in mind that, as the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) alluded to, one of the principal authors of the European convention on human rights, the late Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, later Lord Kilmuir, was, at the time, a Conservative Member of Parliament, had been a prosecutor in the Nuremburg trials and later served as a Conservative Lord Chancellor. Conservative respect for human rights is actually very deep-rooted and, for many years, the UK was a diligent member of the convention, without having the Human Rights Act in domestic legislation. It was sensible to have an Act that enabled the remedies available under the convention to be sought in the domestic courts, rather than having to go directly to Strasbourg. That was the purpose of the Human Rights Act when it was introduced. It is not essential in terms of our commitment to human rights to have a statute in domestic law, but it is certainly convenient and greatly helps many British citizens in the assertion of their convention rights. I think it is right that we keep it, but does that mean it should not be reformed? Of course not. Any legislation has space for reform and improvement and that was the commitment in the 2019 Conservative party manifesto, the manifesto on which this Government were elected. I am happy to support that.
It was consistent with that manifesto commitment that the then Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), commissioned an independent review of the operation of the Act with a view to modernising and updating it. That was the manifesto commitment—no less, but also no more. In consequence, Sir Peter Gross KC, a distinguished former Lord Justice of Appeal, headed up an independent review panel, which took extensive evidence—over 180 submissions plus roadshows around the whole UK—and produced a detailed report. Subsequently, Sir Peter gave compelling evidence in support of his report to the Justice Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and to, I think, the Constitution Committee of the other place.
If there is to be reform, I suggest that Sir Peter’s balanced report is the appropriate template. It touches upon a number of practical changes that could be made. For example, the ambiguity that his panel concluded exists around the hierarchy of rights—the prioritisation of rights—under section 2 of the current Act. Strengthening the means of dealing with the margin of appreciation—that is the way in which there is a degree of flexibility—is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity. According to this principle, each member state of the convention has some flexibility in the way it interprets the rights and the enforcement of judgments and decisions according to their own domestic legal traditions. Developing the concept of judicial dialogue was started again and brought to its current form by Lord Clarke when he was Lord Chancellor, and then developed in the Brighton declaration and subsequently by the Copenhagen declaration. That is a constructive means of developing jurisprudence within the member states. Further recommendations include tackling one or two other thorny practical issues around remedial orders and in relation to extraterritoriality, which is a real issue. Sir Peter posits various alternative ways, but, ultimately, these Houses, as a legislature, would have to decide upon them. Those would be practical improvements and reforms.
I was surprised when, after Sir Peter delivered the report, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) produced a consultation document that went rather beyond the party’s manifesto and then introduced a Bill of Rights that, again, went rather beyond the manifesto and Sir Peter’s panel’s recommendations. Without reciting the history, in September, as has been observed, the Lord Chancellor paused the passage of that legislation and wrote to the Justice Committee and other relevant Committees, notifying them that that was the position. The Lord Chancellor was right to do so. The Bill of Rights, which has had no more than its First Reading, went beyond the manifesto commitment; it also went beyond the sensible changes that I, as a Conservative, want to see, which would be consistent with the evidence that was available to Government. It would also needlessly undermine some of the practical workings of the convention rights for UK citizens.
That is not to say that there are not circumstances where either judgments in the Strasbourg Court or the application of convention rights by the domestic courts do not cause controversy or political sensitivity, if I can put it that way. However, for context, it is worth remembering that the number of instances in which the UK is in breach of its convention obligations is absolutely trivial. I was struck by that fact when I was a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, but also when looking at the evidence we have had most recently. The UK actually has one of the best records of compliance with our ECHR obligations of any of the member states.
The figures in the “Report to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Government’s response to human rights judgments 2020–2021” show that the number of adverse judgments has declined from 19 in 2011 to 4 in 2020. There has been a consistent downward trend. Similarly, the number of cases brought against the United Kingdom ongoing before the courts has declined from 2,500 odd in 2013 to 124. It is worth bearing in mind that many of those cases are now historic. They related either to certain elements of retention of evidence in terrorism cases that have now been dealt with or to the prisoner voting issue, in particular—of course, a minor amendment to the legislation resolved that issue and brought us into compliance with the convention. The outstanding issues, apart from those that hit the headlines around immigration and asylum and one or two other matters, are actually very minor.
When we look to change an important piece of legislation and at the strength of our commitment to our international obligation under the convention, it is worth bearing in mind that the issues are very limited and discrete. I therefore hope that we will leave the passage of the Bill paused and that the Government will reflect that, of all the issues confronting the Ministry of Justice, there may be other, rather more pressing issues that we should be dealing with. If we do move forward with reform, to which I would have no objection, I hope that we use the evidence-based approach that Sir Peter Gross and his panel set up for us. That, I argue, is the responsible and sensible way forward, and one that completely meets our manifesto commitments.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). I am in a very significant measure of agreement with him, particularly about the need for evidence-based policy making.
I rise to speak as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I remind Members that it is a Joint Committee of both the Commons and the Lords, which takes half its members from each House. It is, of course, a cross-party Committee. As the Committee responsible for scrutinising the Government’s human rights record, we have conducted two inquiries considering plans to reform the Human Rights Act. During our inquiries, we heard evidence from experts with a diverse range of views and from people who have benefited from using the Human Rights Act. Having considered all that evidence, we remain of the view, which we have expressed in a number of previous reports, that the Human Rights Act is functioning as intended and enables human rights to be enforced effectively in the United Kingdom, with little need for recourse to the European Court of Human Rights. For that reason, based on the evidence we have heard and the information we have considered, we believe that the Government have failed to make the case for repealing and replacing the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights.
We were pleased to have confirmation from the current Lord Chancellor that the Government were looking again at the Bill of Rights Bill and that its progress would be paused while they conducted a thorough review of the Bill. We were pleased to hear that, unlike before, he intends to look at the evidence base, including the independent Human Rights Act review. We were concerned by the Government’s lack of engagement with experts, Parliament and the public over the Bill of Rights Bill. It followed the independent Human Rights Act review, as we have heard, significant parliamentary engagement and inquiries, and a public consultation exercise, which elicited over 12,000 responses. That is the sort of extensive engagement we should be having before we embark on reform, but engagement has to be genuine and have meaning and purpose, and those who engage should be listened to.
The Bill of Rights simply does not reflect what the Government heard from Parliament’s Committees, their own commissioned independent review or their consultation exercise. The Government’s own consultation analysis shows that many responders were in favour of maintaining the status quo and the Human Rights Act, and believed that the changes proposed were unnecessary. Despite that lack of support, the Government decided to pursue a reform, in which they went to the length of repealing and replacing the Act altogether.
The Government’s consultation analysis provided scant to no reasoning to explain why they decided to disregard the views of a significant number of consultees. In the Joint Committee’s opinion, that calls into question the integrity of the whole consultation process preceding the Bill of Rights. We concluded that, given the overwhelming lack of support for these radical reforms, repealing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a Bill of Rights was neither democratic nor necessary. We were particularly worried about the international implications of repealing the Human Rights Act. Our primary worry was that removing the Act would weaken protections for people living in the United Kingdom, but we were also worried about how it would be perceived internationally.
When we visited the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg earlier this year, we highlighted our concerns. It was emphasised to us that the Human Rights Act is viewed internationally as the gold standard and a model example of how human rights can be effectively embodied into domestic law and practice. It was impressed on us by our interlocuters that any weakening of the mechanisms in the Act could damage the United Kingdom’s reputation internationally and weaken the UK Government’s position when seeking to ensure that other states uphold their human rights obligations. Importantly, we were left in no doubt by those we spoke to that the United Kingdom’s status as a leading member of the Council of Europe and one of the founders of the ECHR means that any reforms to the Act that suggest that we are wavering in our commitment to the convention’s protections could be a green light for other less committed nations to weaken their own human rights protections.
Other hon. Members have spoken about the incredibly positive impact that the Human Rights Act has had on human rights in the United Kingdom, and the Joint Committee has highlighted that in a number of its reports. It has highlighted that it has made it far easier for individuals to enforce their rights, because they can do so in their domestic court, and that is much cheaper and easier. Before the passing of the Human Rights Act, an individual had to take their case directly to the Court in Strasbourg. That process was subject to long delays, by which I mean many years, and on average cost applicants £30,000. As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst indicated, another benefit of the Human Rights Act is that it has led to a significant decrease in the number of cases brought against the UK before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, because we resolve our own human rights problems at home, in the domestic courts of our jurisdiction. The hon. Member gave some statistics about that.
Contrary to what people sometimes think, having a Human Rights Act, and incorporating the ECHR into the domestic law of the United Kingdom, has also enabled courts—in my jurisdiction of Scotland and in those of England and Wales, and of Northern Ireland—to influence the development of European Court of Human Rights case law. We heard that there is a strong dialogue between the UK Supreme Court and the Court in Strasbourg; they both influence each other’s jurisprudence, and that often works to the benefit of the United Kingdom.
Another important thing that the Human Rights Act has done is embed a human rights culture in public authorities. We heard from a number of witnesses—including an NHS trust, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the British Association of Social Workers—that the Human Rights Act has placed human rights at the centre of decision making in public authorities, and that the legal framework assisted them in making complex decisions.
We also heard that the Human Rights Act has been central to the devolution of justice and policing in Northern Ireland, and of course we know that it is embedded in the Good Friday agreement. It also plays a very important role in the constitutional underpinning of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd. As other hon. Members indicated, in my own jurisdiction of Scotland, the Scottish Parliament has gone beyond the Human Rights Act to embed, for example, the UN convention on the rights of the child. The Joint Committee was very clear that we do not believe that the Human Rights Act should be reformed without the consent of the devolved legislatures, because it is so important to them.
I want to be clear: the Joint Committee on Human Rights is not saying that there should not be any amendments to the Human Rights Act, but we would like human rights protections to be strengthened rather than weakened. For example, we want the right to protest—a very important aspect of the right to freedom of expression—to be given greater protection in the Bill of Rights Bill, and we want the right to an effective remedy, as protected by article 13 of the ECHR, embedded. We also want the Government seriously to consider incorporating other international human rights treaties, such as the UN convention that I just mentioned and the refugee convention. That should include the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution, in terms similar to those of article 14 of the universal declaration of human rights.
We are pleased that the current Lord Chancellor has paused the process. We had a very positive letter from him last week. We are looking forward to engaging with him, and we are delighted that the Government will go back and look at the independent review in a way that they did not before. The Committee will continue to engage with the Government, but we emphasise that we believe in evidence-based policy making. It is our view that so far we have seen no evidence to justify the argument that significant changes to the Human Rights Act are either necessary or desirable.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue, and a real pleasure to follow the eminent Chairs of two Select Committees: the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Justice Committee. With perhaps difference nuances, they both said very much the same thing, and so I will not repeat it for a third time: if there is a priority in legislation, reform of the Human Rights Act is not it. That is essentially what the terms of the petition say.
Despite that, when he was Lord Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) set up the Gross review. That was a substantial piece of work and its recommendations were proportionate, so if changes are to be made, we should perhaps be guided rather more by that than by the subsequent consultation, which as far as I can see paid no regard whatever to the Gross report. In fact, it appeared to be based rather more on a shorter piece of work, the 2009 book, “The Assault on Liberty”. The right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) read his own book again—something that I have tried and failed to do on several occasions—rather than looking at the report that his Department commissioned.
It is a shame, and I would probably err on the side of not reforming at all, because the Human Rights Act is a piece of legislation that we should be proud of. It is a practical as well as principled part of constitutional law, and it has worked very well. However, all this did not start in the last year or two, but probably over a decade ago, with the use of legislation aiming to repeal or reform the Human Rights Act as part of the culture wars agenda and throwing red meat to various members of the governing party. It is in the same bracket now as tomorrow’s Bill on retained EU law, flights to Rwanda and the public order legislation to curtail freedom of speech that we had last week. It is a real shame that we are passing legislation of that kind, as is the motivation for passing it.
All this also means that we get confused about the constitutional impact. For example—given that both Members are present—at Justice questions last week, the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) asked the Minister replying to today’s debate:
“It is becoming pretty clear that we cannot get a grip on the small boats crisis and deliver significant reform of our asylum system without reforming the Human Rights Act. What is the Government’s plan?”
The Minister’s response was:
“we are committed to the European convention on human rights and to the UN refugee convention. We believe that our proposals are within the law and that no court has said otherwise.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 525.]
They cannot really have it both ways: either the existing law is sufficient to do what the Government are doing or it needs to be changed.
I feel that, on many occasions, what is put forward and argued results from the outcomes of individual cases that individual MPs do not like, or from their own prejudices or what they perceive to be the views of their constituents, but which might in fact not be. That is a very poor way to legislate, so I was pleased to see that, with the demise of the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton, the Bill of Rights Bill—which was very much his individual project, in a way that is probably quite unhealthy—also saw its demise. Indeed, it was described in rather brutal terms, not by his successor but by Downing Street, as “a complete mess”. That is quite a harsh term for a Government to use about one of their own flagship pieces of legislation, so probably the best thing that could happen to that Bill now is to be quietly tucked away in a cupboard, so that it becomes just a bit of constitutional history and never sees the light of day.
I do not know, but certainly my impression from Justice questions last week—in which three times the Secretary of State or the Minister said very clearly that the Government would wish to stay within the ambit of the European convention and the European Court—is that there seems to be no urgency at all about replacing the current legislation. That implies that we can perhaps move on and quietly forget this whole rather sorry episode. I notice that the Library page relating to today’s debate says of the Bill that “its fate is…unclear”. Perhaps it should remain unclear and we can all move on to more important things.
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
The debate may now continue until 7.53 pm. I call Andy Slaughter.
Andy Slaughter
Thank you, Ms Fovargue. That welcome respite from my speech gives me a hint not to go on too long.
Before we were interrupted by the bell, I was saying that reforming human rights legislation should not be a priority for the Government. Having had time to study his brief, the Minister knows—perhaps he will even still be in post tomorrow; who knows?—that the criminal and civil courts face some of their worst backlogs. There is a real crisis of confidence in the justice system. There is also real crisis in accessing justice, and particularly in legal aid, as the Government concede to some extent in the reviews they have undertaken—or, in the case of the civil legal aid review, are undertaking. There is more than enough for the Minister and his colleagues to do without looking for work and interfering with legislation that is working well.
In a way, the Government are in a favourable position. They have an excuse to move on and quietly forget the bee in the bonnet of the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton. If they wish to follow the lead of the Chair of the Justice Committee and look at the matter again, they have a really fine report by Sir Peter Gross and his colleagues. They do not really need to go any further than that. I will not go through this in depth—I do not see any point in doing so until we know what the Government are bringing forward—but it made me weep to see the way that the Human Rights Act was being misconstrued, whether in relation to parliamentary sovereignty or in relation to the margin of appreciation. The proposed reforms, particularly to sections 2 and 3 of the Act, really distorted both the purpose and the effect of the Act.
Constitutional legislation is a very difficult thing to get right, but the Act was thought to be a success, and it effectively made the conduct of justice easy, because it brought human rights down to domestic level. It gave direct access to the UK courts, and it meant that justice was obtainable at lower cost, more speedily and in a more relevant way. The Government have said they will not take us out of the European convention on human rights, and that we will still be subject to the judgments of the European Court, so the only change will be that it the process will be much more protracted. How can that be in the interests of justice, or the interests of the citizen?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) said, this is not about lawyers or high-falutin’ principles; it is about the ability of citizens to challenge the state and institutions on important areas of law, and regarding decisions that fundamentally affect their everyday lives, when they get things wrong. What is obnoxious about that? That is the role that the Human Rights Act performed; that is the role it continues to perform, with or without the sort of amendments that we have talked about today. To repeal it, as an act of political bravado, is simply irresponsible and I urge the Minister away from that course.
I like to think that we will hear a little bit more from the Minister. I am not hopeful because the Secretary of State has already said that he will take his time, but I hope that we will hear at least a little bit about the direction of travel and where the Government think we should be going on this issue. That would be a helpful outcome of this debate. The almost 250,000 people who have urged caution on him would be pleased to hear that that message is being heeded in the Ministry of Justice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure, Ms Fovargue, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) for presenting the petition. I am very much in favour of retaining the Human Rights Act as it is. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said that there might be a need to do some tweaking or make some changes. I am not against that, provided we have a chance to discuss it and see what the changes are. However, I am very much of the opinion that the Human Rights Act should be retained as it is.
I start by thanking all the 230,000 people who signed the online petition to stop reform of the Human Rights Act. That is almost a quarter of a million people who voiced their objection to human rights being diluted in any circumstance, and I believe that they reflect the views of possibly millions more people. Certainly, people to whom I speak in my constituency want things left as they are. All these people oppose moves to make the Government less accountable, and support increasing the ability of people in need to make human rights claims; I, too, think there is a need to have that opportunity in the law.
To give an idea of just how many people 230,000 are, that is twice the population of even the largest constituency in the UK, and it is about one in eight voters in Northern Ireland, which has a population of 2 million people. This is not a fringe issue; it is a massive issue. The correspondence that I receive on it tells me that people are deeply concerned about it.
In fact, as a general rule, people want more human rights safeguards in place, not fewer. A third of the population of the United Kingdom believes that the UK Government are not doing enough to promote human rights abroad. I am very pleased to see the Minister in his place, and I will make some comments about human rights abroad. As everyone knows, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, and I am a deep and strong believer that when it comes to making trade deals with any country in the world, the key to that process must be regard for human rights, including people’s liberty to serve and worship their god as they wish. I know that the Government are committed to that; I understand that. However, I still want to put that on the record.
As I say, a third of people in the UK believe that the UK is not doing enough to promote human rights abroad; I think that the Government are quite active, but people tell me otherwise. Almost three quarters of the British public agree that the UK should take into consideration a country’s human rights standards when negotiating or signing a deal with it. More than half of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland agrees that the amount of foreign aid given to a country should be tied to its performance against human rights standards; I fully support that condition. When I ask questions of Ministers with responsibility for different parts of the world about that, I am encouraged by what they say happens in that regard.
If this Government—my Government—are to reform human rights, they should make the standards higher. Let us do human rights better, rather than water them down. If that is what the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West is saying—I think it is—I agree that we should do that, rather than make the legislation more dependent on the Government’s economic and trade interests.
Human Rights Watch said to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the repeal of the Human Rights Act would
“weaken human rights protections…and send a negative signal globally about the value of international human rights standards and the worth the UK government attaches to them.”
I am confident that the Minister does not want that to be the opinion of those who look at the United Kingdom from outside. I think many would agree that that is a scathing assessment of the impact that any repeal would have.
Globally, human rights have never been under greater threat. We know about all the things that are happening in Putin’s war in Ukraine. Every one of us is dismayed, disgusted and angered by it, and our Government and our Ministers have taken strong action. We all watched the protests across the villages, towns and cities of Iran. Ladies were often at the fore in those protests; they are the ones feeling the brunt of it. More than 400 people have been killed—most of them women and children—and almost 20,000 have been arrested, all looking for freedom, liberty and human rights. We support that. Then there is China’s treatment of the Hongkongers, not just in Hong Kong but in Manchester, as we witnessed the week before last. We want human rights observed in this country as well as in Hong Kong. The bombings of schools in Afghanistan are human rights abuses. It is really quite annoying. Those are things that have made the headlines in just the past month. If we are to continue to be a global champion of human rights, we cannot let the message be lost. What we do at home is so important.
Hon. Members have made fantastic contributions, and I endorse all of them. Many have a greater knowledge than I do. In my capacity as chair of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, I am frequently in dialogue with civil society organisations and Government representatives from countries where freedom of religion or belief is a major concern. When I talk to all those groups from across the world, it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s leading influence in the defence of human rights that makes bilateral accountability possible. That is vital. I and many others are concerned that replacing the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights would send to those countries the message that the UK does not practise what it preaches. That is the interpretation they will make. I am sure that the Minister will respond positively and lay that to bed. We must see human rights as an absolute good in themselves, and not as a means to an end. Such transparently selfish interests would inevitably undermine attempts to promote human rights abroad, and would do far more harm than good.
The Human Rights Act should be left as it is. There are many in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and many more across this great world, whom we have a duty to protect. We need the Human Rights Act, not a Bill of Rights, but if we change the Act, we should make it better. I cannot and will not agree to the dilution of the current provisions.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I commend the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) for moving the motion.
We have had a very good debate. It is clear that this issue is close to the hearts of many of our constituents across the four nations. We heard from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who is an authority on these matters. It is always worth noting all she has to say as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); we are often on opposing sides in debates and Divisions in this place, but I fully agree with everything he has said today. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) for their excellent contributions. Of course, I also thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for his interrupted contribution; I am glad to say that none of the points he was making was diluted—political bravado, indeed. I place on record my thanks to the public who have partaken in their democratic right and signed the e-petition, including 326 from my constituency of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on what can only be described as an unashamed attempted power grab by the Government, in the form of their proposed reform to the Human Rights Act. There is absolutely no justification for such reform at this time, other than this Government creating for themselves the potential to be above the law. Such is the UK Government’s desire to substantially harden an already hard Brexit that they are literally ripping out the final piece of European-related legislation that we have. It is not a piece of legislation that could, nor should, be changed lightly, if at all.
The Human Right Act aims to protect every individual across our society. We lose that at our peril. It is an essential law that has allowed us to challenge public authorities when they get things wrong. It has helped to secure justice on issues from the right to life to the right of freedom of speech. The Human Rights Act has changed many lives for the better; it must be protected and not subject to reform that reduces its scope or limits when people can rely on it. The reform is a threat to how and when we can challenge those in power; it will strip some people’s rights away and require people to have permission from a judge before they can take a state to court. The UK Government must respect the rule of law. Their changes will mean that future UK Governments, of all political leanings, will be beyond the reach of public accountability. Where is the democracy in that?
The utter contempt of the UK Tory Government for the upholding of human rights has been blatant; we see it in their attempts to send refugees, some of the most vulnerable people in our society, to Rwanda. Since that scheme was invented, public pressure and the protections in our legal system have meant that not one refugee has been sent on a plane. Ironically enough, we are on our third Home Secretary since then. I suppose that is not that surprising; we are also on our fourth Chancellor and third Prime Minister in that short space of time. The Government should focus on far more important things than tinkering with human rights legislation.
It was the words of that former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), that I found most chilling—I alerted her to the fact that I would mention her. It was her “dream” to see planes of refugees sent to Rwanda. Of all the dreams to have! Surely the outcry at that statement proves that the Conservative party’s interpretation of human rights protections is starkly different from that of the wider public and Members from across this Chamber.
One of the most concerning elements of reform for my constituents in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill is the implication for the integrity of the devolutionary settlement. We have heard from Members about the encroachments on that. The Scottish Government, along with other devolved Governments, have been abundantly clear that they do not support any such reforms, which would erode rights that years of devolution have achieved. A report published in July 2021 by the Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded,
“The Government should not pursue reform of the HRA without the consent of the Scottish Parliament”.
Well, that consent has not been given.
In their Bill of Rights, the Tories say they want to
“strengthen this country’s proud tradition of freedom, curtail abuses of the human rights system and reinforce the democratic prerogatives of elected Members in this House over the legislative process in respect of the expansion of human rights.”—[Official Report, 14 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 913.]
It takes some serious neck from this Government to portray themselves as coming to the defence of judges, when they have been at constant war with them over the judgments they have given that the Government did not like. Tory proposals to uphold citizens’ rights simply do not equate with the reality of legislation passed under this UK Government, such as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the Elections Act 2022 and the Public Order Bill, all of which impede the rights of our citizens.
The UK Government must stop all attempts to rewrite the constitution and devolved settlements. Such practices cannot continue, and Scotland does not accept that manner of working. I implore the UK Government to stop all attempts to reform the Human Rights Act, and I fully support the aims of the petitioners.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Fovargue. The strength of feeling on the issue has been demonstrated not only by the nearly 250,000 people who signed the petition, but by the speeches we have heard today. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) said that the Human Rights Act provides justice for victims, including soldiers, women facing violence and victims of Hillsborough. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said that replacing the Human Rights Act was completely the wrong priority for the justice system, and spoke about his hope that that will now be abandoned with the demise of the previous Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab). The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) shared his commitment to the Human Rights Act, and noted the very large number of people who signed the petition and the strength of feeling on the issue.
The case has been made very strongly for why the Human Rights Act is such an important piece of legislation, and why it should not under any circumstances be scrapped and replaced with the Government’s Bill of Rights Bill. It is a relief that the Government did not bring forward the Bill for Second Reading last month. I hope that the Minister will confirm that it will not come back, and that the Government will drop their attempt to scrap the Human Rights Act. Make no mistake: rather than a so-called Bill of Rights, it is a rights-removal Bill, which is designed to dilute the rule of law and weaken the rights of British citizens.
The Human Rights Act was brought in by a Labour Government, with a simple but profound aim: to bring rights home, ensure human rights protections are accessible, and provide a mechanism to hold the Executive to account. For the last 25 years, the Act has met that aim. Indeed, it is recognised around the world, and has been integral to the Union of our nations. As has been said, the Scottish Government consistently made clear their support for the Act in their response to the Government’s Bill of Rights Bill consultation. The Welsh Government have recorded their opposition to any proposal to replace the Human Rights Act. Perhaps most significantly of all, the Act has played a large role in peace in Northern Ireland, because the full incorporation of the European convention in domestic law was a key aspect of the 1998 Good Friday agreement.
Members across the House would have grave concerns about legislation that could undermine the Union. We have talked today about the importance of evidence. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) called for any review to be evidence-led, and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said that the Joint Committee on Human Rights completed two cross-party reports that concluded that the Human Rights Act is working well and does not need to be repealed or replaced. That was also the conclusion of the independent expert review, and the view of well over 250 charities, trade unions and human rights organisations that joined together to call for the protection of the Act. Organisations working with vulnerable people—ranging from the charity ACTION:FGM to Mind, the Chronic Illness Inclusion Project, the Down’s Syndrome Association and Southall Black Sisters—have also said that the Act is a proportionate and well-drafted protection of our fundamental liberties. The evidence that the Human Rights Act is working is overwhelming.
Far from the mythical rights culture that the Conservatives point the finger at, the Human Rights Act has time and again been the course of redress for those failed by the state. Take Corporal Anne-Marie Ellement. After she reported being raped by two Royal Military Police officers, she suffered bullying, ostracism and overwork. In the end, she took her own life. Using the positive obligations under article 2—the right to life—Anne-Marie’s family secured a fresh inquest into her death and a new rape investigation.
The results of those investigations led to improvements in the military justice system that have helped to support servicepeople who have been victims of rape and sexual assault in the military. It also led to the formation of the service complaints ombudsman, an independent body that investigates complaints by service personnel. The positive obligations under article 2 also ensure that bereaved families of the Manchester Arena attack in 2017 and the Fishmongers’ Hall attack in 2019 received full investigations, which examined whether the attacks could have been prevented. The lessons learned were placed on counter-terror operatives to better protect people in the future.
The Human Rights Act is an essential tool for upholding women’s rights to live free from violence through positive obligations under the Act, but the Conservatives’ rights removal Bill would remove them, thereby limiting women’s ability to challenge the state’s failures to protect them. A prime example of positive obligations under the Human Rights Act in protecting women is the case of black cab rapist John Worboys, who my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham also spoke about. Despite two of his earliest victims reporting their experiences to the police, systematic failures to properly investigate or take those reports seriously meant that he was not charged, and was free to continue attacking women for many years. Thanks to the Human Rights Act, those victims were able to take the police to court and hold them responsible.
More recently, the High Court judgment regarding the policing of the Clapham Common vigil for Sarah Everard saw the Act play a crucial role when a court ruled that the Met had failed to understand the law when it banned women for holding a vigil for Sarah. Thanks to the Human Rights Act, the organisers were able to seek redress. It is unconscionable that the Government are pursuing an agenda that will attack those basic rights, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that the legislation will not come back.
Rather than looking to the genuine positives of the Human Rights Act, in the proposed legislation the Government attempted to dismiss it as a law misused and exploited by criminals and extremists. The truth is that the Act offers essential daily protections for citizens, which in so many cases we take for granted. There is no justifiable reason for the Government to try to curb those obligations on the state to protect our human rights. Doing so simply seeks to absolve the state of responsibility. Unless the Minister is willing to accept the importance of the Human Rights Act, and commit to dropping the Government’s Bill of Rights, I am afraid that it adds to the Government’s scoresheet of not being on the side of victims, not being serious about tackling violence against women and girls, and not being a guardian of the rule of law.
Labour, on the other hand, believes in a country that is accountable and has proper checks and balances, where institutions seek to protect the rights of the people they serve, rather than cover up and obfuscate when things go wrong. That is what we aspire to, and it is why a Labour Government would defend the Human Rights Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I thank the hon. Members for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar), and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) for their contributions.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank the creator of the petition, who I understand is in the Public Gallery, for his engagement with Parliament. I hope he will agree that we have had a very constructive debate. There may be slight differences of opinion, but the debate has been positive. I also thank the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves). I like the people of Lewisham West; when I stood there in 2005, I found out that I liked them rather more than they liked me, but that is a separate issue. She represents a wonderful constituency, and I thank her for her contribution.
I am genuinely grateful that the debate gives me the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on this issue. The UK has a long and proud history of recognising and standing up for the fundamental human rights of individuals. Robust protection of those rights, such as freedom of thought and of expression, is a vital cornerstone of our modern democracy. In recognition of that, the Government pledged in our manifesto to review and update the Human Rights Act, which was created in 1998 to give further effect in UK law to the rights set out in the European convention on human rights.
Almost a quarter of a century has passed since that Act came into force. It has occupied an important position in the UK’s human rights framework, but after over 20 years, it is entirely right that we should look at it again and seek to update it, not with the intention of reducing protection of our rights and freedoms, but to make sure that this country’s human rights framework continues to be the best that it can be, meets the needs of the society that it serves, and remains a leading example on the international stage. We want to ensure that the Act strikes the proper balance between the rights of individuals on the one hand, and our vital national security and effective government on the other.
The Government established the independent Human Rights Act review in December 2020 to examine the framework of the Act, how it operates in practice, and whether any change is required. Chaired by the former Court of Appeal judge Sir Peter Gross, who my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst mentioned, the review panel was tasked with considering the relationship between domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and the Act’s impact on the relationship between the judiciary, the Executive and the legislature. The Government are most grateful to Sir Peter and his panel for their valuable report, which was published in December 2021.
Following the report, the Government commenced work on a Bill of Rights. Their reform programme not only took the report into account but considered wider issues relating to our domestic framework, including the need to strike a balance between individual rights and the wider public interest, and to give public authorities the confidence to carry out their duties. As Members might expect, when a new Government were formed, the Bill’s progress through Parliament was paused in the light of a wider review of policy priorities. We are taking this opportunity to closely consider our approach to updating the Act, and to ensure that the provisions that we put forward will deliver the Government’s objectives as effectively as possible.
Let me be clear that any reform to the Act will be in full compliance with the European convention on human rights, and with the UK’s other international obligations, including the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the Northern Ireland protocol, and our trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union. More broadly, we will maintain our leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law internationally. The UK’s record at the European Court of Human Rights demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that human rights are protected. The UK’s human rights record is strong. Of all the state parties to the European convention on human rights, the UK has the fewest applications to the court per million inhabitants. The figures that I have are slightly different from those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but the point remains the same: at the end of 2021, applications against the UK made up only 0.17% of the Court’s case load, and very few of the Court’s final judgments find a violation by the UK; two did in 2020, and five in 2021.
We continue to be a strong supporter of the work carried out by the United Nations treaty bodies to uphold the broader human rights system. The UK remains a strong advocate of the United Nations Human Rights Council, and we have a deep commitment to the success of its universal periodic review. We believe that it is an important mechanism of universal and constructive peer review. It allows the sharing of best practice and promotes the continual improvement of human rights on the ground, and is therefore a process we will continue to engage with.
The UK has been praised in the UN’s previous universal periodic review dialogues for our leadership on certain recommendations and our commitment to the review process. We have recently published our state report for our fourth universal periodic review, the dialogue of which is scheduled for November 2022. This petition rightly points out that the Human Rights Act provides important protection. While I could not disagree with that sentiment, it does not preclude us from looking carefully at how the Act could be improved.
Andy Slaughter
The Minister is making a good case for “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. He has used the phrase “review and update” himself, so I assume we will have no more of “repeal” and “replace”, which is what it says in clause 1 of the paused Bill. He has rightly said that we are both a contributor to international human rights and are less criticised than many other countries in that respect. Are those not all arguments for not needing a comprehensive review? Twenty years is not a long time. Magna Carta has been around for about 800 years—we are not talking about repealing that.
Gareth Johnson
The Conservative party manifesto at the last general election made it clear that we wanted to review and update the Human Rights Act. We would still remain compliant with the European convention on human rights, whatever changes are made. It is purely to review and update the Act. The manifesto does not say that we wish to repeal and scrap the Human Rights Act.
Steven Bonnar
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. He makes reference to manifesto pledges and his commitment to deliver on them. I wonder why it is only his Government who are allowed to deliver on their manifesto pledges. The Scottish Government have a clear manifesto pledge to deliver an independence referendum. Self-determination comes under human rights, and I wonder why he would like to deny that to the people of Scotland.
Gareth Johnson
That might take us down a rabbit hole that you, Ms Fovargue, might regard as being out of order. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Human Rights Act is not a devolved matter; it is retained by the UK Parliament to legislate on. Updating the Act to ensure that it serves its intended purpose and keeps up with the needs of a changing society is a crucial step towards doing just that, and the work to review how best to achieve that continues. I look forward to updating the House on that work in future. I reassure all hon. Members present that protecting the rights and freedoms currently enjoyed in this country will remain of the utmost importance throughout this process.
Scott Benton
I thank you, Ms Fovargue, and all those hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. We have heard thoughtful contributions from all who have spoken, including the hon. Members for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), as well as all Front-Bench Members.
It is a particularly opportune time for this debate, with the incoming new Prime Minister. Tomorrow, the Department will establish a way forward, and I am sure that the Minister will feed back all the shades of different opinions from today’s debate. We have alluded to our manifesto commitment to review and update the Act, and I am reassured by the Minister’s comments that that is still on track. Of course, we are now in the second half of this Parliament, so the sooner that comes forward, the better. Along with Back-Bench colleagues, I look forward to seeing what the Government produce and how they will safeguard people’s rights, while allowing us to reform our immigration system and ensure that those who are a threat to national security can be deported. It is a difficult circle to square, but I have every faith that the Minister and his team can achieve it. Thank you, Ms Fovargue; I am happy to close the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 607712, relating to human rights legislation reform.
Written Statements
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
NHS Charging Regulations Exemption for Ukrainians
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Robert Jenrick)
The Government continue to take measures in response to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine to support those who ordinarily live in Ukraine who have come here to seek safety and support.
In March 2022, my predecessor amended the NHS charging regulations to allow residents of Ukraine, and their immediate family members, who are lawfully in the UK, to access NHS care in England for free, including those who transfer here under official medevac routes. This covers all potential treatment needs, except for assisted conception services, to align with the existing exemption for those whose immigration health surcharge (IHS) fees have been waived.
We committed to review this concession by 17 September. Today I am pleased to announce that my Department has completed its review and has agreed to maintain these concessions for a further 12 months at which point they will be reviewed again.
Those who will continue to benefit from this exemption include:
Anyone who uses an alternative temporary—less than six months—visa route outside of the family or sponsorship routes.
Anyone who chooses to extend their visit or seasonal worker visa temporarily, without going through the IHS system.
Anyone who is in the process of switching visas.
This Government continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian friends and we are proud to maintain our support for Ukrainian residents in our country.
[HCWS340]
Public Order Bill: Clause 9 and ECHR
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Jeremy Quin)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) has today made the following written ministerial statement:
On a free vote with cross-party support, an amendment was inserted into the Public Order Bill by the House of Commons on Tuesday 18 October. Clause 9 establishes designated areas—buffer zones—around abortion clinics where interference with people accessing or providing abortion services would be an offence.
Section 19(1) of the Human Rights Act provides a mechanism to notify Parliamentarians if a statement cannot be made that a clause is compatible with the ECHR, but this does not fetter the right of Parliament to legislate in such a way, should it wish.
I am unable, but only because of clause 9, to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Bill are presently compatible with Convention rights but the Government nevertheless wish to proceed with the Bill.
The Government have published a separate ECHR memorandum with their assessment of the compatibility of the Bill’s provisions with the Convention rights: this memorandum is available on the Government website.
I am sure this House will naturally wish to debate and scrutinise this amendment further. I look forward to continue working with all colleagues on this legislation as the Bill moves through Parliament.
[HCWS342]
Northern Ireland: Commissioning of Abortion Services
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
As Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I am required under section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019—the NIEF Act— to ensure that the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the 2018 report of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women—the CEDAW report—are implemented in full.
The Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022, which came into force on 20 May 2022, provide the Secretary of State with the same powers as a Northern Ireland Minister or Department for the purpose of ensuring that the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the 2018 CEDAW report are implemented.
Today, I am announcing that the UK Government will ensure the commissioning of abortion services.
21 October marked the three-year anniversary of the decriminalisation of abortion in Northern Ireland. It is not right that three years on, women and girls in Northern Ireland are still unable to access the full range of healthcare to which they are lawfully entitled.
The UK Government have been clear that they would commission abortion services if the Department of Health did not act. We regret that this step is needed, in what ought to be a matter for the Department of Health to implement. The Government have been left with no other option, as women and girls have been left without safe and high quality services, with many having to travel to the rest of the UK or turn to the unregulated market to access healthcare to which they are legally entitled. The devolution settlement does not absolve me of my legal obligation to ensure that women and girls can access abortion services in Northern Ireland, as they can in the rest of
the UK.
I will be meeting the chief executives of health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland in the coming weeks to ensure these services can be provided. Ultimately, it remains the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive to fund abortion services in Northern Ireland. The UK Government will ensure that appropriate funding is available to enable healthcare professionals to take the necessary steps to ensure that essential training and recruitment of staff can progress, and services can be implemented.
[HCWS341]
Grand Committee
Procurement Bill [HL]
Monday 24th October 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 View all Procurement Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-VII Seventh marshalled list for Grand Committee - (24 Oct 2022)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock)
If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 30: Excluding suppliers for improper behaviour
Amendment 177
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“(aa) failing, in the case of a supplier with two or more enterprises that are resident for tax purposes in two different jurisdictions with a group turnover of more than €750m, to provide a copy of a tax report which meets the requirements of the Global Reporting Initiative Tax Standard;(ab) failing, in the case of a supplier that is currently under investigation for tax offences in the United Kingdom or abroad, or where the company has reached a settlement with a tax authority following an investigation for a tax offence, to disclose details of the investigation;(ac) failing, in the case of a supplier which has a group turnover of less than €750m, to disclose that the supplier—(i) is based in a tax haven, or(ii) is a subsidiary of a person based in a tax haven, or(iii) has a subsidiary based in a tax haven.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that a supplier must be treated as an excluded supplier if it does not: report its economic activities in each country where they operate and the taxes paid in each country; report details of any tax investigations; and report where it is based in a tax haven or is a subsidiary of a person based in a tax haven.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 180. It seems a long time since we were in Grand Committee debating the Bill: quite a lot of things have happened since. I am sure the Committee would wish me to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to her position. I wish her a degree of permanence—at least until the next election. Of course, she still has some amendments in her name to come. I know we may have debated them, but it is her opportunity to re-educate her department and come back with rather more robust responses than she received from the noble Lord, Lord True, although I express my thanks to the noble Lord for his stewardship of the Bill and his willingness to engage in debate with your Lordships on this important legislation.
I move on to my amendment. A few months ago, the Centre for International Corporate Tax Responsibility and Research and TaxWatch published a report on Amazon’s most profitable segment, its cloud computing business, which they argue is increasingly indirectly supported by taxpayers through hundreds of billions of dollars and pounds in government contracts around the world. In the UK, it said that Amazon’s cloud computing business won almost £600 million in government contracts between 2018 and 2021. It also highlighted that in 2020 Amazon signed a master agreement which allows it to treat all UK central government agencies as one client, which will further increase the volume of its UK contracts.
Despite Amazon collecting public money through large and rapidly growing government IT contracts, the tax payments of this company remain opaque. Indeed, a 2021 research report into Amazon’s tax practice shows that only a fraction of the company’s UK sales are accounted for in its UK accounts. Sales in the UK and elsewhere appear to be channelled through subsidiaries in Luxembourg and, although Amazon says that UK revenues recognised in Luxembourg are reported to HMRC, there is no public accountability as Luxembourg accounts do not disclose how much tax, if any, the company is paying in the UK. Amazon’s practices are replicated by many multinational companies, and the aim of my amendment is to press the Government to use the Bill to start to take some action. The Bill offers a chance to ensure an increase in transparency around the tax affairs of potential suppliers of government contracts. It also offers the opportunity to ensure the exclusion of companies that have engaged or are engaging in egregious tax abuse.
Tax non-compliance has been a potential ground for exclusion from government contracts for some time. In 2013, the Cabinet Office issued Action Note 06/13, which sought to ensure that companies bidding for government contracts declared any tax non-compliance in the procurement process, but this has had no effect whatever. Following FOIs to more than 40 government departments by the think tank TaxWatch, not a single incidence of the supplier being excluded was reported. It was also clear that very little compliance monitoring was occurring. The majority of departments responded saying that there were no incidents reported, but not every department even provided that response; some said they were unable to answer as it would take too long to respond. Will the Minister tell me why departments are so weak in holding these companies to account?
The Bill currently includes misconduct in relation to tax as a mandatory exclusion ground in Schedule 6, Part 2, but mandatory exclusion grounds do not mean that the supplier must be excluded from a procurement competition. A supplier becomes an excluded supplier only if it qualifies for a mandatory exclusion ground and
“the circumstances giving rise to the application of the exclusion ground are likely to occur again”.
The legislation also covers participation in defeated avoidance schemes. The mandatory exclusion ground covering defeated tax avoidance schemes includes instances where a tax return has been amended due to the participation of the taxpayer in a tax avoidance scheme and where the taxpayer has reached a settlement with HMRC, in which case there is no need for the person to receive an adverse judgment in a tax tribunal. When it comes to individuals and companies that have engaged in tax avoidance, the provisions of the Bill are wide-ranging but mandatory exclusion grounds apply only where there has been an assessment by HMRC. That assessment is final, meaning that any appeal rights have been exhausted.
We know that tax litigation is often complex and sometimes takes an exceptionally long time to wind its way through the justice system. When it comes to large companies, including the multinationals, it is common practice for the tax authority to settle tax disputes without penalties being charged.
We know that major companies—Amazon, Google and General Electric—have been investigated in recent years by authorities around the world for committing serious tax offences, but in each instance they have settled rather than admitting guilt and receiving full penalties. As such, none of these companies is barred from procuring government contracts and, with that, taxpayer money. The exact terms of these settlements are not always available to the public. Often settlements between major corporations and tax authorities involve an adjustment to tax liability without an admission by the company engaged in any wrongdoing; the dispute is simply characterised as a difference of opinion over a tax treatment. One way to strengthen the Bill would be to require a company to disclose whether it was currently under investigation for tax offences in the UK or abroad, or where the company had reached a settlement with a tax authority following an investigation for a tax offence.
The Global Reporting Initiative tax standard is a finance reporting standard that provides enhanced public transparency for companies and their tax payments. In particular, it provides for companies to report their economic activities in each country where they operate and the taxes paid in each country—country-by-country reporting. This is a transparency mechanism for revealing corporate tax avoidance. This often involves a company moving profits from higher-tax countries into tax havens. If a company is engaged in profit shifting, that will appear in country-by-country reporting by a company showing very high profits in low-tax countries where the company has little economic activity, and low profits in higher-tax countries where much more activity takes place. For example, Amazon does not provide a breakdown in its accounts of revenues, profits and tax payments in non-US markets by jurisdiction, making it difficult for investors, the public and tax authorities around the world to evaluate whether Amazon is engaged in responsible tax practices.
The implementation of the GRI would allow for some necessary scrutiny. A group of Amazon investors put forward a shareholder resolution at the Amazon AGM in May 2022 calling for greater transparency in the company’s tax affairs and to make disclosures in line with the GRI. That resolution was defeated but was backed by 21% of independent shareholders. Country-by-country reporting is mandatory for multinationals engaged in the extractive and logging industries under rules implemented by several legislatures around the world. Country-by-country reporting is mandatory in the banking sector under EU legislation. Numerous multinational organisations now voluntarily report using the GRI tax standard. My amendment would require all large companies bidding for government contracts to produce a copy of reporting under the GRI tax standard. In addition, the supplier should report details of any tax investigations and report where it is based in a tax haven or is a subsidiary of a person based in a tax haven.
My second amendment would provide for a Minister to lay regulations listing those jurisdictions that are considered to be providing a tax haven to suppliers. Clearly my amendments are not the whole answer to the issue of tax shifting by multinational companies, but using the Bill would be one of the stepping stones that we could take to a much fairer tax situation in this country. I hope the Government will be sympathetic. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I rise as a cipher for my noble friend Lord Wallace, who has tabled a number of amendments in this group. He is unable to attend this and the next day in Committee, so I will be deputising for him.
I too welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to her new role, and congratulate her on getting to complete this Bill, which must be regarded as the plum legislative job available—so I say “well done” to her. During a debate on the economy a couple of weeks ago, she said from the Dispatch Box that she was very keen on “simplification” and cited simplifying procurement as being in her sights—now, here she is. However, before her well-deserved promotion, on the third day in Committee on 11 July, “Back-Bench Lucy” was more strident. She said:
“The more I listen, the more I feel that this Bill in many respects strikes the wrong note. It is overregulatory and calls for a rethink, which I hope the Government will be thinking about.”—[Official Report, 11/7/22; col. GC 359.]
On those grounds, I suggest that she should exercise her new power, withdraw this poorly drafted Bill and come back with one more in keeping with simplification and with her aversion to overregulation.
In the absence of any enthusiasm from the Minister for doing that, I speak to Amendments 306, 307, 308, 320 and 328, tabled by my noble friend Lord Wallace, some of which I have signed; I do not support all of the others. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for their support for Amendment 320.
An effective debarment and exclusion regime protects the public purse from rogue actors and drives up corporate government standards. Exclusion and debarment from procurement are potent anti-fraud and anti-corruption tools. The issue of companies with long records of corruption winning public contracts in this country is appalling. Nearly a quarter of local councils experienced fraud or corruption in 2017-18. Fraud costs the public purse up to 5% of government spending overall. I thank Spotlight on Corruption for these numbers.
The UK’s record on excluding these types of companies from participating in public procurement is not good, at best. The list of companies either from the UK or operating here that have been shown to have engaged in serious corporate misconduct is unfortunately lengthy and well publicised; yet, under the existing debarment regime, it has been, in practice, all but impossible to apply a discretionary exclusion in the absence of a conviction. There has been very little use of exclusion in the UK to date under current EU-based rules, and the Procurement Bill is an opportunity to address the weaknesses in those rules that have prevented exclusion from being used effectively to protect the integrity of the public purse. I am sure that the Minister would approve of replacing an EU law with a better UK law—these are suggestions for how to make it better.
This Bill as formulated contains some significant issues and crucial gaps that could seriously undermine the effectiveness of the debarment register and exclusion regime. There is a risk that the register will stand empty for many years, which would undermine the reputation of the register and the UK’s anti-corruption efforts in general. It is therefore crucial to get this right at this critical stage of the Bill’s development.
Amendment 306 seeks to make criminal offences for sanctions evasion grounds for exclusion from public procurement. The Bill currently contains no references to criminal offences for sanctions evasion. Given the Government’s current policy of imposing sanctions to ensure its foreign policy goals in relation to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and their ambition to use sanctions to achieve important foreign policy goals to be a force for good globally, this is a major omission. Incorporating criminal offences for sanctions evasions in the Bill would make companies across the UK take their obligations to comply more seriously. This amendment redresses this omission.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I, too, welcome my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe to her new position. As she knows, she and I share many views on the Bill; indeed, we supported each other’s amendments. I fully endorse the quotation read out earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Fox; I hope that my noble friend will stick to it.
Amendment 534 is in my name; my noble friend had added her name to it, and it was debated during an earlier sitting of the Committee. It asked for a report on procurement rules, specifically around simplification and SMEs. My noble friend will be aware that, obviously, it has not yet been moved because it is low down on the list. While she has now removed her name, about which I am distraught, I hope that, when we get to that part of the Marshalled List, we might have a more favourable response from the Government Benches.
I have three amendments in this group: Amendments 323, 326 and 327. They are probing amendments relating to some of the discretionary grounds for exclusion in Schedule 7. The mandatory exclusion grounds in Schedule 6 are all based on objective facts—mainly whether various offences have been committed. The discretionary grounds in Schedule 7 are a mix of subjective and objective tests. My amendments are designed to probe this. I could have tabled more amendments to the schedule, because other paragraphs in it also use subjective tests, but I chose paragraphs 8, 9 and 11 as examples of the issue that I wished to debate.
In each of these paragraphs, the test is whether a decision-maker considers that a supplier has done something. To take the example of paragraph 8, the ground is that the decision-maker considers that the supplier or a connected person has infringed a bit of UK competition law, or an overseas equivalent. I do not understand why all these matters covered by the paragraphs cannot be dealt with by objective tests, as are used in Schedule 6. Surely an infringement of competition law can be objectively determined and ought not to be left to the opinion of a procurement official. Can the Minister explain why the Bill uses subjective tests rather than objective ones for these paragraphs?
My amendments are rather more modest than replacing these provisions with objective tests but they seek to strengthen the nature of the subjective test from “considers” to “is confident”. I chose that wording to align with what is in the Explanatory Notes, which explain the paragraphs in Schedule 7. I suggest that, if a subjective test is to be used in Schedule 7, the hurdle should be set at a fairly high level. My amendment might not be the right one but it is there to probe the language of the Bill. I am aware that Clause 55 gives some opportunity for suppliers to push back on decisions by contracting authorities but, at the end of the day, judicial review is the only real remedy available to a supplier who feels that they have been badly treated by the terms of this Bill. As we know, judicial review is a very unwieldy remedy and, frankly, is not available at all for SMEs in practical terms.
I also note that, in paragraph 15, which deals with national security, the decision-maker has to determine whether there is a threat to national security. When my noble friend winds up, would she please explain the difference between “determines”, which is used in paragraph 15, and “considers”, which is used throughout the rest of the schedule?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise with great pleasure, following the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to agree with everything that all of them said. I am going to be quite brief but I have three points to make. I will speak chiefly to Amendment 177, to which I have attached my name—as have the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Hendy—but I also want to comment on a couple of other amendments in this group.
I join others in welcoming the Minister to her new post. Is it not good to have some certainty in politics? At least we have the certainty that the Procurement Bill will come round again, whatever else we might be doing or facing in other parts of the Westminster system.
There is a phrase about the certainty of death and taxes, except of course we know that taxes are not a certainty for many of the companies now operating in the UK or collecting many government contracts. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, referred to one of those companies in particular—a company that I describe as the great parasite. It does not pay its workers very well, which relates to another amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy—we will get to that later—and it pays little or no tax in the UK.
There is a specific point to be made here. I am sure the Government would say that they want to see government and official money being spent well. However, the Tax Justice Network has noted, in looking at definitions of tax havens, that another term for them is secrecy jurisdictions. When companies operate out of tax havens, it is extremely difficult to see what is happening with their money and how they are operating; of course, they are not paying for the facilities and services they need to run their business and make their profits. In thinking about the great parasite, the example I often give when talking to schools, colleges and community groups is this: “Imagine the road outside. Think of all the lorries that have been carrying Amazon parcels up and down it today. Who is paying for that road? All of us in this room are, but Amazon is not”. If the Government are concerned about value for money and transparency in government procurement, Amendment 177 and the associated Amendment 180 are absolutely essential additions to this Bill.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I also start by welcoming the Minister to her new role. I thank her and her officials for having a useful meeting with us ahead of today. Let me say how pleased we are to have a Minister who is genuinely interested in this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, talked about the Minister’s previous involvement; I am sure that her knowledge and interest will lead us into a better place.
I will start with the two amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Amendments 177 and 180, to which we offer our strong support. Clearly, all of us should embrace anything we can do to tackle tax abuse and tax avoidance. I hope the new Government—we are looking forward to hearing what they have to say—will prioritise this area.
My noble friend talked about Amazon, the lack of accountability and the kind of poor practice that is replicated by many companies, and gave a thorough explanation of why the legislation in front of us could be used to make a difference to cases of tax avoidance and abuse. I hope the Minister listened to those concerns seriously and considers whether this Bill is an appropriate vehicle to address them.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, introduced a number of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, to which I have added my name. I will not go into them in detail, only to say that we support incorporating evasion of criminal sanctions into the Bill. The failure to prevent bribery offences has been incredibly disappointing, and the Bill could be used to tighten that up and make more progress. Also clearly disappointing are the very few convictions there have been under the Proceeds of Crime Act. How can we use this Bill to make a difference in these areas where there is still concern? I am sure all noble Lords agree that we need to ensure proper and effective enforcement to curb any serious wrongdoings in these areas.
Briefly on Amendments 323, 326 and 327, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, she clearly introduced something that I had not really considered until I read these amendments. Again, “considered” is the important word here. She is absolutely right that you need to think about the strength of a subjective test and how it would be interpreted. I completely agree with her; we need to understand this better. I would be interested to hear from the Minister on this, because the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is correct that judicial review is simply not a practical option for SMEs; it just is not. How will this be interpreted and managed through the Bill? I look forward to the Minister’s responses.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their kind welcome on my appointment as Minister of State at the Cabinet Office. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about my predecessor, my noble friend Lord True, and his willingness to engage—a model I will try to follow. I am very much in listening mode today, as we are still in Committee, working on the Bill.
I am poacher turned gamekeeper, and that can be a good qualification. As noble Lords know, I have consistently taken a keen interest in the Bill, although from a slightly different perspective. I will not delay you with a long introduction, but I am pleased that the Bill consolidates 350 EU regulations. That is simplification at a stroke: it streamlines public procurement and reduces burdens on business, and it turns EU-based law into UK law, which is why we can be confident of its progress.
In particular, it will benefit SMEs, for which we must do our best to offer a level playing field, so that they can increase their share of the £300 billion spent by public authorities each year. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will agree with that. I am also looking forward, if I get the chance, to rolling out training on the Bill—simple, clear, comprehensive training in central and local government, and elsewhere. That will answer some of the concerns that I and others across the House have had on the Bill.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions on the grounds for financial exclusion and will try to respond constructively. I begin with Amendments 177 and 180 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Hain. These seek to ensure that the suppliers who fail to provide contracting authorities with various details in relation to their tax affairs when bidding for contracts must be excluded from procurements. I should start by making it quite clear that the Government expect businesses to take all necessary steps to comply with their tax obligations.
However, noble Lords will know that the basis on which contracts must be awarded under the Bill is by reference to award criteria that relate to the contract being tendered, not to other matters such as where a supplier pays tax. This is the right principle to deliver value for money for the taxpayer and ensures that suppliers are not required to provide swathes of information that is irrelevant to the contract. This principle is also a feature of the UK’s international obligations, notably under the WTO government procurement agreement. It is for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to enforce the law on tax and, indeed, UK-based multinational enterprises are required to make an annual country-by-country report to HMRC. I note what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about Amazon.
The grounds for exclusion in the Bill focus on criminal convictions and other serious misconduct that raises a risk to public contracts, including, importantly, in relation to tax. But investigation does not mean guilt in this country. Exclusion is not a substitute for a judicial process. It is important to let due process run its course before subjecting suppliers to mandatory exclusions.
However, we have broadened the scope of the current regime with the mandatory exclusion grounds related to tax in Schedule 6, which cover all tax evasion offences and involvement in abusive tax arrangements. This is a significant broadening from the current regime, which is limited to where there has been a breach of tax obligations and lets suppliers off where they have repaid or committed to repay unpaid tax. I am confident that these grounds are sufficient to protect contracting authorities and taxpayers.
Lord Fox (LD)
During that spirited defence of the need to keep things open for international companies to be able to bid, the Minister used the phrase “value for money”. Can she define the Government’s view of how they calculate value for money?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
If I may, I will think about the answer, make some progress, and come back to that on a future occasion.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Well, I think that “value for money” is a clear term, but I am listening seriously to the point that the noble Lord is making in this context. Value for money is about quality and quantity; indeed, it is about many things, as I know, having been on the buyer side in real life as well as on the selling side. As for what the definitions are in the Bill, I am not sure.
I come back to the important points from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the subject of tax. It was clear from feedback on the Green Paper that the existing tax exclusion ground is one that many authorities are struggling to apply. By reframing the ground in terms of UK offences and regulatory decisions, we believe that it should be easier for UK contracting authorities to apply this. I also add—because I remember it well from the time that I served in David Cameron’s Government—that the UK has tried to lead the way internationally in making sure that multinational companies pay their share. Strong HMRC compliance action has secured and protected over £250 billion for public services since 2010 that would otherwise have gone unpaid, including £3 billion from those trying to hide money abroad. This is work that goes on—and work to which HMRC is devoted, as I remember well.
The noble Lord also raised tax havens. The Bill will deliver unprecedented levels of transparency in procurement, including—this point needs to be made—with respect to the beneficial ownership of suppliers. All suppliers will be expected to declare their beneficial owners when bidding for contracts. Failure to provide accurate details of beneficial ownership when asked will now be a mandatory ground for exclusion.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I try to wake up early, as noble Lords know. Value for money is not defined in Clause 11(1)(a), to leave a degree of flexibility for future refinement. In practice, we will use the HMT definition, which is currently,
“the optimal whole-life blend of economy, efficiency and effectiveness that achieves the intended outcome of the business case.”
It is quite a nice mixture—economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister, but the question I was rather clumsily trying to ask was whether we extract from the cost the amount of money we expect to take in tax or merely use the cost as a flat sum. In other words, with a British company paying full British tax versus one of the companies described by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which pays no tax, does the overall cost of that service become less for the one paying tax? It seems the Minister’s answer is that the tax take is not included in the calculation of value for money.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think we have made a bit of progress; I will not go down that rabbit hole or we will not make enough progress.
If I might, I turn to Amendments 306, 307, 308 and 320 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace, Lord Fox and Lord Hain. They would introduce new mandatory exclusion grounds in relation to offences of sanctions evasion, money laundering and failure to prevent bribery, and new discretionary exclusion grounds in relation to various financial and economic misconduct when the contracting authority has sufficient evidence in the absence of a conviction.
The mandatory grounds for exclusion cover the types of misconduct which raise only the most serious risks for contracting authorities. We have already strengthened the mandatory grounds significantly in comparison to the EU regime, but they cannot and should not cover every offence. On sanctions, the types of freezing orders referred to in the amendment are unlikely to be relevant to public contracts. On bribery and money laundering, we have included a range of mandatory exclusion grounds covering the most serious offences. This expands the scope of the offences covered in the EU regime to cover blackmail as well as bribery. However, I reassure noble Lords that the offences in question which are not listed as mandatory exclusion grounds are likely to be subject to discretionary exclusion, under the ground of professional misconduct. This will depend on the circumstances, but if the ground is met, contracting authorities could exclude the supplier.
As to the amendment to include financial and economic misconduct as a new discretionary exclusion ground, we have already explained to this Committee that the exclusion regime is not a substitute for a judicial process. I am not prepared to require contracting authorities to weigh up complex evidence of financial and economic misconduct in which they have no relevant experience. That is a key issue with the ambitious proposals described by the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Amendments 323, 326 and 327, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, concern the discretionary exclusion grounds for potential competition infringements and the test for when these apply. These exclusion grounds recognise that there may sometimes be evidence of competition infringements in the absence of a regulatory decision or ruling. It is critical that suppliers known to have been involved in collusion, bid-rigging and anti-competitive behaviour are held to account, given the fundamental importance of fair and open competition to procurement.
However, I reassure the Committee that these grounds should not be used to exclude suppliers merely because they are under investigation by the CMA or another regulator; there must be sufficient evidence that a breach of competition rules has occurred. I think my noble friend pointed out that the language used in the Explanatory Notes differs from that in the Bill. I am advised that this does not reflect a difference of policy or meaning. Authorities must “consider” that the conduct specified has occurred before determining that the exclusion ground applies. She went on to ask about why there were subjective tests in the discretionary grounds. I have to say that I had some difficulty in exactly following her logic in all this, and we may need to discuss these points further after Committee. The answer is because exclusion is a risk-based measure and a last resort, and suppliers are protected by a right to challenge the exclusion decisions because of the nature of those decisions.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
A moment ago my noble friend said, in respect of the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that she did not want decision- makers trying to weigh up complex financial matters, but she somehow seems quite happy to have decision-makers weighing up equally complex matters scattered throughout Schedule 7 and in the discretionary exclusion grounds. I struggle to see the intellectual cohesion in the Government’s position.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her further comments, which I will consider carefully. I myself feel strongly, as someone who has witnessed small construction companies being investigated by a competition authority that at the end of the day have been found completely innocent, that it would be difficult if they were not able to continue to engage in procurement during a long period of investigation. However, as she explained, we need to get right how we deal with the discretionary grounds and ensure that there is enough certainty so that authorities do not spend too much time going round in circles. We need to reflect further on the points that she has made. I think I slightly misunderstood the purport of her original amendment, so I look forward to discussing that with her. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his intervention.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response. The notion of, in a sense, using professional misconduct as the catch-all for everything else is something that we could pursue after Committee. It may be something that requires some definition or clarification, either within the legislation or from the Dispatch Box on Report. If that is going to be the way that the Bill operates, some clearer idea as to how it would work would help to ameliorate some of the fears that have been expressed around the Bill.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We have to get the right result but we also have to avoid a chilling effect. That is my basic approach to this.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
A chilling effect on corruption is obviously positive but a chilling effect on people being prepared to engage in government procurement is not, particularly smaller suppliers, which might be put off by some of these rules. That is why we brought in Schedule 6, which will bring a certain clarity. There may be some further discussions to be had on Schedule 7 and exactly how it works.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I too welcome the Minister to her position. My question relates to a later group in which I have an amendment. Given that the Bill will allow for there to be no discrimination against any treaty-state supplier, how will a contracting body or procurement body operate under Schedule 7 for any of the suppliers from any of the countries with which we have a trade agreement? This comes back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. It is not simply the case that businesses are going to have to work through Schedule 7 to satisfy all the grounds for this; they are going to have to do it with every single country with which we have an FTA for the suppliers coming from them. How is that making the job easier?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As the noble Lord said, we will come on to discuss those aspects, and I will try to answer that question when we get there. I have probably said enough on that.
Amendment 328 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox, provides for a new discretionary exclusion ground in relation to deferred prosecution agreements. This issue was explored in the Green Paper. Due consideration was given to feedback from the public consultation, as well as discussions with the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service. The Government’s response to the Green Paper set out the rationale for their decision not to include a separate exclusion ground on deferred prosecution agreements. In brief, the actions taken and commitments made by suppliers as part of the DPA typically constitute good evidence of self-cleaning. Reaching a DPA requires a supplier to accept culpability for the offence, co-operate with the relevant authorities and make reparations. Prosecuting authorities typically will not consider a DPA appropriate unless the supplier has already made reforms, such as proactive changes to corporate structures or the replacement of personnel.
DPAs will involve judicially approved terms that the supplier must commit to—for example, on actions to improve compliance and audit functions within the company, and external reviews to test those improvements to ensure that further misconduct does not occur. Non-compliance with a DPA is unlikely to be something that contracting authorities are equipped to assess. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will understand and accept that.
Compliance is for either the Serious Fraud Office or the Crown Prosecution Service to assess, depending on which is the owner of the DPA in question. If a supplier fails to comply with a DPA, there are a number of options open to the enforcing body, including the prosecution of the supplier for the original criminal misconduct, but that cannot be part of procurement law, or for enforcement by the many differently sized authorities engaged in buying goods or services in the public sector.
Finally, Amendment 443 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, seeks to remove
“a British Overseas Territory or a Crown Dependency”
from the definition of a UK supplier. The Bill confers rights on UK suppliers in a number of places, including, in Clauses 18 and 19, an entitlement to be considered as part of a competitive tender, or, in Clause 89, to access remedies. They are also used as the basis for an assessment of no less favourable treatment in the non-discrimination provisions, in Clause 82(2). This amendment would remove this guaranteed access to the UK’s procurement markets from suppliers from Gibraltar, which is the only overseas territory or Crown dependency whose suppliers currently enjoy access under the existing procurement regime.
Although overseas territories and Crown dependencies are not part of the UK constitutionally, they do not become party to treaties in their own right. The UK must extend the territorial scope of its ratification of treaties to include them. As such, overseas territories and Crown dependencies are unable to secure rights to markets in the United Kingdom in the same way as other states. That is a long way of saying that in view of the special nature of the trading relationship between the UK and overseas territories and Crown dependencies, it is right to include them in the definition of a UK supplier.
This discussion has been useful and illuminating to me. I respectfully request that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I particularly welcomed her comments on SMEs and training rollout. I really agree about the importance of investment in training as the Bill is enacted. However, I remain concerned about the Government’s approach, which seems supine in many respects when dealing with these multinational companies.
Only this afternoon at Oral Questions, we had a fascinating exchange about the remarkable decision to award Fujitsu a £48 million contract to upgrade the police national computer, given the role of that company in developing Horizon software for the Post Office. We were told by a Minister that in effect, there was no alternative because of the continuing arrangements with that company. Listening to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about performance issues, corruption, competition infringements, which were added to by my noble friend, and the issues on tax, essentially the Minister has an ideological objection to the use of contracts to further government policy outside the narrow procurement interest. This is where I fundamentally disagree with her.
It is not good enough simply to say that it is down to HMRC. Procurement can be used to enhance policy in a number of areas. Many of these multinational companies are taking this country for a ride. We need to see tougher action. Having said that, I hope that we can continue to debate this important issue. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(a) treat the supplier as an excluded supplier for the purpose of assessing tenders under section 18, and(b) exclude the supplier from participating in, or progressing as part of, any competitive tendering procedure.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Excluding supplier for involvement in forced organ harvesting
(1) Subsection (2) applies if a contracting authority determines that a supplier is located in a country categorised by a Minister of the Crown as at high risk of forced organ harvesting.(2) The contracting authority must treat the supplier as an excluded supplier in relation to the award of a public contract involving— (a) any device or equipment intended for use in organ transplant medicine or activities relating to human tissue, or(b) any service or goods relating to organ transplant medicine or activities involving human tissue.(3) A Minister of the Crown must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for the listing of countries considered to be at high risk of forced organ harvesting.(4) A country is at high risk where—(a) the country has high levels, or is suspected of having high levels, of forced organ harvesting or trafficking in persons for purposes of the removal of organs; or(b) the government of the country is directly or indirectly seen as supporting or indirectly supporting forced organ harvesting or trafficking in persons for purposes of the removal of organs.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is designed to exclude suppliers located in a country at high risk of forced organ harvesting from being awarded a public contract involving any device or equipment intended for use in organ transplant medicine or activities relating to human tissue or any service or goods relating to organ transplant medicine or activities involving human tissue.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in a sense, this amendment is very different from my first two. None the less, we are seeking here to use procurement legislation to advance government policy in relation to the awful practice of forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China. The practice was found by the China Tribunal—as advised by Edward Fitzgerald KC, who provided expert legal opinion to it—to be a crime against humanity and part of a possible genocide against Falun Gong.
Forced organ harvesting in China involves the removal of organs from a living prisoner of conscience for the purpose of transportation, killing the victim in the process. It is state sanctioned and widespread throughout China, with the Chinese Communist Party targeting individuals because of their religious and spiritual beliefs or ethnicity. The victims are known primarily to be Falun Gong practitioners, but more recent evidence indicates that Uighur Muslims are also targeted on a massive scale. Further to that, there are several lines of evidence showing that Tibetan and house Christians are likely victims of forced organ harvesting.
Regarding Uighurs and other minorities, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights published its report on Xinjiang in August, stating:
“Allegations of patterns of torture or ill-treatment, including forced medical treatment and adverse conditions of detention, are credible, as are allegations of individual incidents of sexual and gender-based violence.”
It also stated that the treatment of Uighurs and others in Xinjiang by the Chinese Communist Party
“may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.”
That is a most important and profound statement, made only three months ago.
Both Uighur and Falun Gong practitioners are arbitrarily arrested, detained in camps and tortured. They face sexual violence, disappear while in detention and are murdered for their organs, on a vast scale. A study published in April this year in the American Journal of Transplantation investigated whether Chinese transplant surgeons established first that the prisoners are dead, before procuring their hearts and lungs, or whether the cause of death was the organ procurement itself. The study was based on the dead donor rule—the most fundamental ethical rule in organ transplantation. It states that organ procurement must not commence until the donor is formally pronounced dead; the procurement of organs must not cause the donor’s death.
The paper, entitled Execution by Organ Procurement: Breaching the Dead Donor Rule in China, was written by Matthew Robertson and Dr Jacob Lavee. Dr Lavee is a transplant surgeon and the founder and a former director of the heart surgery unit at the Sheba Medical Center in Israel. In 2005, a patient told him that his insurance company had scheduled a heart transplant operation for him that would take place in two weeks. The patient flew to China and received the heart as arranged. That would be impossible unless the time of death of the donor was known in advance. Following this incident, Dr Lavee spearheaded the organ transplantation law in Israel, the first of its kind in the world, which prevented insurance companies from reimbursing expenses associated with illicitly obtained organs. Along with a range of reforms encouraging domestic donation, this stopped the China-to-Israel organ-trafficking pipeline in its tracks.
During this recent research, Robertson and Lavee found, in 71 different Chinese medical studies published between 1980 and 2015, sourced from 56 hospitals in 33 cities, that brain death could not properly have been declared. Therefore, the removal of the heart during organ procurement must have been the cause of the donor’s death. The authors state in a recent article in the Tablet,
“the act of execution was joined with the act of heart removal, and was carried out by surgeons on the operating table.”
Just think of that.
My amendment is designed to exclude suppliers located in a country at high risk of forced organ harvesting from being awarded a public contract involving any device or equipment intended for use in organ transplant medicine or activities relating to human tissue or any service or goods relating to organ transplant medicine or activities involving human tissue. Essentially, it would prevent any service or goods that may have been involved in or developed off the back of the forced organ harvesting trade from entering the UK. This includes organ transplant training, such as the training of Chinese organ transplant services, related education and research, as well as organ transplantation equipment.
I have been very encouraged by the Government’s recent willingness to legislate on this issue, such as through my amendment to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill last year, which included consent provisions for imported human tissue for use in medicines; and the amendments to the Health and Care Bill in April this year, prohibiting the commercialisation of organ tourism. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, have been huge supporters of this approach and I am glad to see them here today.
These legislative steps have set a good precedent, both in our country and as a signal globally. I emphasise to the Minister that passing amendments such as this into British law is significant internationally. Other countries observe what is happening, and we are part of a global movement to try to get action to stop this reprehensible behaviour.
I am grateful to the Government for their sympathy for our approach, but I want to go further. In April this year, it was stated in a ground-breaking business and human rights legal advisory, written by international law firm Global Rights Compliance, entitled Do No Harm: Mitigating Human Rights Risks when Interacting with International Medical Institutions & Professionals in Transplantation Medicine, that
“medical professionals and institutions who have collaborations with Chinese medical institutions involved in forced organ harvesting face a risk of being charged with complicity in international crimes, including crimes against humanity.”
It goes on to explain that
“aiding and abetting ‘consists of practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support which has a substantial effect on the perpetration of the crime’.”
Prestigious medical institutions, such as the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, are now taking action. In April this year, the society issued a policy that it would no longer accept submissions to its journal or for presentations at its conference related to transplantation and involving either organs or tissue from human donors in the People’s Republic of China. My forced organ harvesting amendment to the Procurement Bill is critical to protect our UK medical professionals and institutions from complicity. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in what was a powerful, disturbing and very thoughtful speech. I think all of us who are privileged to be in the Committee today are indebted to him for that and the way he introduced this group of amendments, to which I am a signatory, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff. She sends her apologies for not being able to be physically present today, but she strongly supports the amendment, as does the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro. It is worth bearing in mind that both of those noble Lords have held very high office in the medical institutions in this country and it is good that their names are attached either to the amendment or to the arguments that go with it.
I declare interests as vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs, who the noble Lord referred to, and on Hong Kong, as patron of Hong Kong Watch and as a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. This amendment deals with a gruesome and barbaric lethal practice that has been prevalent in China. Last Thursday, here in the Moses Room, a debate was held on the International Relations and Defence Select Committee report on China, trade and security. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, was present throughout proceedings and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was present and contributed to those proceedings, during the course of which a number of us referred to the levels of trade and, inter alia, the level of procurement that is carried out with China by the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out that we have a £40 billion deficit in trade with the People’s Republic of China. That would be reason enough for considering, in the context of resilience and dependency, why procurement policies with a country designated by the Government as recently as last month as “a threat” to the United Kingdom should be radically readdressed. During the debate last Thursday in the Moses Room, I referred to earlier debates in this Committee on the Bill specifically about Hikvision. It is worth recalling that the noble Lord, Lord True, was gracious enough to have several meetings in his office to discuss this, as well as dealing with it at that stage. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, well enough—I congratulate her, as others have done, on her appointment as Minister—to know that she will take this as seriously as he did.
The company Hikvision is responsible for the surveillance cameras in Xinjiang referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. But these cameras were purchased through our procurement policies by great departments of state and are used in local government and by public authorities up and down the length and breadth of this country. These cameras are used to impose the surveillance state on the Uighur Muslims referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
At the conclusion of our debate last Thursday, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, promised he would write to me in response to my question specifically about whether, during the next set of proceedings on the Bill—therefore, on Report—the amendments that many of us argued for at earlier stages will be agreed by the Government. I hope that the noble Baroness’s officials will talk to his officials before he writes that letter, so that we genuinely get joined-up government on this.
I hope they will also look at the Biden Administration’s legislation on goods made by slave labour, something that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I have raised in other legislation and that we both, as well as other members of the Committee, feel very strongly about. They should also look at legislation the Biden Administration introduced called the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, which draw together the prioritisations of investing in domestic industry, tackling climate change and reducing dependency on authoritarian regimes. All those things should be done in the context of this Bill.
In parentheses, I remind the Committee that we bought 1 billion—not 1 million, but 1 billion—lateral flow tests from the People’s Republic of China and 24 billion items of personal protective equipment where China was recorded as the country of origin. The cost to the United Kingdom was a staggering £10.9 billion—about the equivalent of our now reduced overseas aid and development budget. This is British taxpayers’ money pouring through our procurements into the pockets of a country that stands accused of the appalling barbarism identified in Amendment 185, and indeed of genocide.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I am a co-signatory on this amendment and, from the Lib Dem Benches, we strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his endeavours to combat the appalling issue of forced organ transplantation. He has made a strong and comprehensive case, as did the noble Lord, Lord Alton—as ever. Like them, I am glad that Ministers have been responsive over the past few years in relation to these appalling practices. I hope that this continues. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the amendment is designed to exclude suppliers located in a country
“at high risk of forced organ harvesting”
from being awarded a public contract involving
“any device or equipment intended for use in organ transplant medicine”
or in related regard—for example, research.
As the Minister will know, this House has a very well-informed and cross-party approach to combating forced organ transplantation. She will be aware of the significance of such obvious and lengthy cross-party working. I assume that this might rightly be in red on the risk register for the Bill. I have noticed that that might be the case.
I recall a few years ago that a Peer, who is a current government Minister, was praising the Chinese for the speed and apparent efficiency of their transplant programme. I am certain that they would not have expressed that view had they known what we know now. That is surely thanks to the assiduous work of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Alton, and others. They, in turn, have been supported by the meticulous examination of the evidence by the China and the Uighur tribunals, both headed by Sir Geoffrey Nice, former prosecutor in the Balkans war-crimes tribunals. They shone a light on the terrible practice of forced organ harvesting. I noted that they found—as others have noted—that victims in China were targeted because of their religion, beliefs or ethnicity.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has just said, the China tribunal concluded that forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale; and that commission of crimes against humanity against the Falun Gong and the Uighurs have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Noble Lords have also heard the view from the United Nations; securing that was very difficult to achieve. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, as ever, calls some of the individuals concerned into our view, so we cannot say that we did not know.
The medical profession has been accused in the past of turning a blind eye to such practices. The BMJ criticised the transplant community for failing to implement high ethical standards. I note, however, that, in the BMA’s briefing for the Bill, it states that,
“upholding ethical procurement standards is essential.”
It refers to the procurement of medical equipment, including PPE, from the regions in which labour abuses have been alleged. It states that it would support
“any amendments to strengthen the legislation to help ensure ethical procurement and transparency throughout the supply chains of health-related goods.”
That would certainly apply to this amendment. In addition, as we have heard, the UK enjoys a global reputation for high-quality medical research. It is something that the Government emphasise as being key to the United Kingdom’s future. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has indicated, it is thus vital that we protect medical researchers from inadvertent involvement.
During the summer, in the then Conservative leadership debates, Rishi Sunak was asked about dealings with China. It is good that he acknowledged the potential human rights challenge. However, he also said that he sought to have a constructive engagement. This amendment would close a loophole, given that he has now been chosen by the Conservatives to be the country’s newest Prime Minister. It will help to ensure that the Government do indeed properly pay attention to human rights, which the new Prime Minister said was an aim of his.
In regard to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in relation to the hospital in China, will the Minister say whether UK Export Finance funds were given in this case? If she cannot tell me now, can she write to me? In summary, I commend this amendment to the Committee, and I hope that we will see progress and engagement with the Government.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise; I will see how long my voice lasts—not long, I imagine some people hope, but we will see how it goes.
I too congratulate the Minister on her promotion. She has already learned some of the tricks of the ministerial trade: she has gone through what she has previously said and asked her civil servants to have a look and see what she could say back if anyone raised it, which relates to what she opened with about simplification.
The serious point is that the fact that she has questioned the Bill will make her a very good Minister. That does not mean undermining the Bill, but you have to have a Minister who challenges it and listens to what people say, otherwise the whole process is pointless. From that point of view, we are all reassured by her appointment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 185 would require the Minister to publish in regulations a list of countries considered to be at high risk of performing forced organ harvesting. It would also require contracting authorities to exclude suppliers from those countries from certain procurements.
Clearly, I appreciate the seriousness of the issue of organ harvesting; I agree that it is a difficult matter for the Government. This is an abhorrent practice, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which is all the more egregious when sponsored by the state. It is an issue that has been frequently debated in recent years; I recognise the dedication with which it has been pursued by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, with the support today of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro. It is understandable that they take opportunities such as today to draw attention to the awful things that are happening and the scale of the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right to record that the Government are taking action to address this issue on a number of fronts. The Health and Care Bill was amended during its passage through Parliament to prohibit commercial organ tourism and send an unambiguous signal that complicity in the abuses associated with the overseas organ trade will not be tolerated. Equally importantly, the Government continue to monitor and review evidence relating to reports of forced organ harvesting in China, and they maintain a dialogue with leading NGOs and international partners on the issue. This includes Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers writing to the World Health Organization in Geneva to encourage it to give careful consideration to the findings of the China Tribunal on organ harvesting, published in March 2020.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I was talking about the international angle and the importance of doing things internationally. I am particularly grateful for the reminder of the need to discuss these issues with my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park. I will also talk to the FCDO, DHSC and DIT about the UK-China hospital partnership and whether there has been any use of UK Export Finance. I have not been briefed on the issue, but I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who is not in his place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, if they are content.
Turning to the main issue, I must resist this amendment on a number of counts, which I will explain. First, it treats suppliers as excluded simply for being located in a country at high risk of organ harvesting. This is guilt by association. It would undermine the principle, which runs throughout the exclusions regime, that suppliers can be excluded only where the supplier or a connected person has committed relevant misconduct. This is really important to ensure fairness and proportionality in exclusion decisions. The amendment could also have perverse effects—for example, preventing the NHS procuring life-saving devices in a country, even though they have nothing to do with organ harvesting or people trafficking.
Finally, there is already a provision in the Bill which would allow for the exclusion of suppliers who participate in forced organ harvesting. The Bill is clear that any serious breach of ethical or professional standards applicable to the supplier would meet the discretionary exclusion ground for professional misconduct. It is almost certain that involvement in these practices by suppliers of goods or services related to transplant medicine or human tissue would constitute a breach under the detailed standards set by health sector institutions.
The exclusion ground of professional misconduct is intended precisely to cover all the particular ethical issues that arise in different industries and sectors. That is of course an exclusion we agreed earlier, which merited further discussion. The grounds for exclusion cannot and should not list every issue within a particular industry. I should repeat that the exclusion and debarment regime in the Bill represents a significant overhaul and enhancement of the EU system; we should not forget that.
Finally, to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I have already promised, in his absence, to write on the subject of the hospital, but I am also of course aware of the concerns regarding Hikvision.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I apologise to the noble Baroness; I got trapped in the Chamber when the doors were locked at the end of the Division—it serves me right. Some people may wish it had been permanent. I am grateful to the noble Baroness and look forward to reading her reply in Hansard.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I look forward to getting delayed in the Lobby in the next Division.
I am aware of the concerns regarding Hikvision and other Chinese technology companies; we take these concerns extremely seriously, as the noble Lord knows. We are taking action in the Bill to introduce a new ground for exclusion, specifically to address situations where a supplier poses a threat to national security. The new exclusion ground allows a contracting authority to reject bids from suppliers that the authority considers pose a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom.
It is the long-standing policy of successive British Governments that judgment as to whether genocide has occurred is for a competent national or international court. It is not for the contracting authorities. Genocide is a crime and, like other crimes, whether it has occurred should be decided after consideration of all the evidence available in the context of a credible judicial process.
This has been an important debate. I have learned a lot but, for today, I respectfully request that this amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify a little her argument as to why organ trafficking—which is prohibited under the UK’s statute book—cannot be mentioned in Schedule 6 under the mandatory exclusion grounds. Under labour market, slavery and human trafficking offences, there is a fairly comprehensive list of UK domestic offences that are mandatory grounds. I do not see why that list cannot be added to, as I cannot see where the ethical grounds are included within Schedule 6 on the mandatory grounds.
Can the Minister also clarify why, in Schedule 7, on discretionary grounds, those offences are included for prevention orders? The Government seem to be suggesting that for a company that is subject to prevention orders for these heinous crimes—or could be subject to them, if it were a foreign supplier—this is simply discretionary. A contracting body would have to make a judgment itself as to what it considers would be the likelihood of a supplier meeting the threshold for a prevention order, rather than an offence. That does make any sense to me. I would be grateful if the Minister could address those two points.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will need to take the noble Lord’s first point away and look at it. His explicit point is that there is a bit of legislation, so why do we not refer to it? His second point is tied up with how this discretionary schedule works and how we define “professional misconduct”, which, in our interpretation, includes ethical issues. I thank him for raising these issues again.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I would be grateful if the Minister were willing to consider this. It is not about the ethical point. It comes under paragraph 1 of Schedule 7, which is headed “Labour market misconduct”. Sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) specifically refer to slavery and trafficking prevention orders and trafficking and exploitation prevention orders. If a supplier is considered to be acting in a way that would satisfy a prevention order in the UK, it would be a discretionary exclusion ground rather than what I consider it should be: a mandatory exclusion ground. I am happy for the Minister to reflect on it and write if she cannot answer today.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Clearly, I have learned during this debate. I will obviously have to learn a little more about how we have tackled this issue. As was said right at the beginning of the debate, there is clearly some difficulty around the principle of how much detail to include and how many things to cross-reference in the Bill but, in the light of the noble Lord’s helpful clarification, I will go away, look at the various areas and come back to him.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lord Coaker for their profound speeches. Of course, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, who cannot be here today.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, put a number of pertinent questions to the Minister, not just about the UK-China hospital partnership but more generally about the principles behind our trade with China. I must say that I find government policy inconsistent and incomprehensible. The new Administration, if I can call them that, need to get a grip on what exactly our relationship with China ought to be in terms of diplomacy, trade and strategic investment. Over the past few years, it has seemed completely all over the place.
There is an argument—my noble friend Lord Coaker referred to it—about the principle of how much we should use procurement legislation for wider, desirable policy aims. I believe passionately that it is right to use a Procurement Bill to try to influence this abhorrent practice. I am grateful to the Minister because she gave a careful response and appreciated the seriousness of this abhorrent practice, which we are doing our best to help eradicate. She also acknowledged the changes made in legislation in the past few years. However, she was critical of the amendment’s wording; she has quickly taken on the mantle of ministerial office again, by finding all amendments that do not emanate from her own department technically deficient.
The Minister’s key point around what is wrong with the amendment is that it is guilt by exclusion. I understand that but I believe that the amendment is tightly drawn. It is not just about excluding suppliers
“located in a country categorised … as at high risk of forced organ harvesting.”
It would exclude only in the event of
“a public contract involving … any device or equipment intended for use in organ transplant medicine or activities relating to”
that. That is tightly drawn and entirely justifiable.
The Minister also said that these practices would be covered by the exclusion grounds in the Bill. We have now had a debate on that; I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised some important questions. I accept that one can look to general provisions in a Bill and say, “Well, those cover it”, but I believe that there is sometimes a strong place for explicit provision on a practice that we find abhorrent. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to discuss this with us between Committee and Report because I am convinced; I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Coaker for his pertinent comment that we will come back to this on Report. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we have a change of horse. By way of a health warning, my remarks do include mention of a considerable number of amendments. However, as a reassurance, and in the interests of brevity and the current buzzword—simplification—my speech is somewhat shorter now than it was at the beginning of the day.
A number of amendments are needed in Committee to ensure that the Bill functions appropriately. Clauses 34 to 39 introduce the new concept of dynamic markets and the new utilities dynamic markets. Existing dynamic purchasing systems are limited to providing commonly used goods and services that are generally available on the market, and therefore their scope is constrained. Examples of existing dynamic purchasing systems include Crown Commercial Services artificial intelligence, which enables public sector bodies to access services including machine learning and augmented decision-making. The new dynamic markets can be used for all procurements rather than just commonly used purchases. Dynamic markets will always remain open for new suppliers to join. This provides a great opportunity for all types of suppliers, including SMEs, to pre-qualify for work.
Amendments 210 to 212 and 217 to 219 would clarify that references to membership of a dynamic market in this context relate to membership of an appropriate dynamic market, or an appropriate part of such a dynamic market. This is defined in Amendment 222 as a dynamic market, or part thereof, that permits the award of the contract by the contracting authority.
Amendment 220 clarifies that a contracting authority must consider applications for membership of the dynamic market from suppliers that have asked to participate in a competition reserved for members of the dynamic market before excluding such suppliers from the competition. This is in addition to considering applications from suppliers that have submitted a tender as part of the competition.
Amendment 222 contains various definitions relevant to these amendments, including a new explanation of when a dynamic market is appropriate, as mentioned previously. It also contains the exemption from Clause 34 for concession contracts other than those that are also utilities contracts, which was previously in Clause 35.
Amendments 223 to 227, 229 to 231 and 233 are tidying-up amendments. Amendments 223, 230 and 233 would delete provisions that are now set out elsewhere.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, as I was saying, Amendments 223 to 227, 229 to 231 and 233 are tidying-up amendments. Amendments 223, 230 and 233 delete provisions that are now set out elsewhere. Amendment 224 clarifies that only contracting authorities may award public contracts using dynamic markets, while Amendment 225 reflects the terminology of “participation in”, rather than “membership of”, a dynamic market. Amendment 226 includes a new definition of “utilities dynamic market” to make it clear that this is a subcategory of dynamic markets rather than a distinct concept. Amendment 227 deletes the previous definition of a utilities dynamic market and deletes Clause 35(3), which will not be needed if proposed new Clause 1, which was discussed on the first day of Committee, is agreed on Report. Amendment 229 is a grammatical change, and Amendment 231 ensures that the definition of “utility” applies across the whole Bill, not just to this clause.
Amendment 234 includes proposed new subsections (1A), (1B) and (1C) in Clause 36, relating to conditions for membership of a dynamic market. These provisions apply the same restrictions to these conditions as apply to conditions of participation in a competitive tendering procedure, as set out in Clause 21.
Amendment 235 clarifies that the contracting authority that established a particular dynamic market, as opposed to any other contracting authority, must publish a notice when the dynamic market ceases or changes—for example, when new suppliers are added.
Amendment 288 allows for a minimum 10-day tendering period for the submission of tenders in competitive tendering procedures for the award of contracts under dynamic markets. This shorter period is a significant efficiency offered by dynamic markets. It compares to the usual tender return of 35 days, which applies in a normal procedure unless tender documents are provided at the outset and/or tenders are accepted electronically, both of which reduce the return by five days.
Amendment 345 extends the requirement on contracting authorities to notify the relevant appropriate authority where a supplier is excluded from a dynamic market because it has fallen foul of a mandatory or discretionary exclusion ground. Amendments 346 to 348 are consequential on this amendment.
In respect of the last two amendments, Amendment 541 corrects the clause reference in the list of defined terms to align with the amendments proposed to Clause 35, while Amendment 545 includes in this list a cross-reference to the newly defined term “utilities dynamic market”.
With that, I beg to move the first of these government amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Viscount set out so speedily, this new concept of dynamic markets is so new that a lot of it did not even make it into the original Bill; it had to be brought in as amendments. Thereby hangs a concern—not with the concept of a dynamic market, which I will come to shortly, but with how this is being put together, the sum of the parts and how it will work. It is difficult to see exactly how this will work in practice from the noble Viscount’s presentation that we just heard, the Bill itself and the original White Paper. That is my concern.
It would be helpful if the noble Viscount came back to us in writing with a simple message as to how this will work. How, for example, does it welcome innovation rather than shut it out? I will give an example. Whether a dynamic is based around process rather than outcome makes a difference, so how will these rules manage dynamic markets that actually deliver constant innovation? How will they be refreshed? How will the system work so that, rather than having the power of incumbency, if you like, which is often what happens with procurement, power will be pushed around to allow innovation, new entrants and new people to work within this dynamic?
We can call something dynamic but how is it dynamic on an ongoing basis if I use this market to buy things or services on a daily basis? Essentially, that is my concern: all these amendments are tinkering around technically with process but, because of the way this has been put together in pieces, will it actually work? Can the Minister come back with some assurance as to how this is supposed to work? How will it be constantly renewed? How will he ensure that it is open to new entrants throughout the life of that dynamic? How will individuals know that they are able to keep entering that market? Tenders will not be going out, so what is the process? If I have a small or medium-sized business, how do I find out about dynamic markets that might suit my product or service set? I am concerned about those kinds of mechanisms and processes.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I had not intended to intervene but I am getting a bit confused here. In the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, Regulation 34 describes a dynamic purchasing system. First, I am trying to understand the difference between the dynamic purchasing system that existed in the regulations we are replacing and this apparently entirely new dynamic market; I am not quite clear what it is. Secondly, the dynamic purchasing system in the regulations is an entirely electronic system. This one is not necessarily so.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I hope it is but it does not say so, whereas the 2015 regulations make it clear that it is. I wonder whether this will be an entirely electronic system.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I shall be extremely brief as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already covered a lot of the concerns that your Lordships feel. Following on from that, we need some clarification around the issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, just said, of whether it is or is not entirely electronic. How is that going to operate? What are the conditions of membership? We need some clarification on the detail of how the dynamic markets are going to work. Perhaps the Ministers opposite could write to the Committee with some clarification about the operation of the system ahead of Report. That would be very helpful.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate the comments made by the three Peers who have spoken. It might be appropriate for me to write a letter to clarify the detail, which I appreciate came across as rather technical—though not too rushed, I hope. I appreciate the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman; I will attempt to answer some of them.
Let me start by saying that the expression “dynamic market” is not just a name change. The dynamic market will have a wider remit than the current dynamic purchasing systems. Importantly, dynamic markets can be used for all procurements rather than just commonly used goods and services. That is the first change. The Bill also provides much greater clarity on how dynamic markets can be established and contracts awarded to suppliers—this is on-the-ground information—and on how contracts can be awarded to suppliers that are members of the dynamic market, as well as increased transparency over their operation. I hope that helps to some extent.
I shall go further in answer to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. The benefit of frameworks is that, once set up, they can be a fast, efficient, compliant and easy-to-use procurement route for both the contracting authority and the suppliers. Again, once the framework is set up, there is a significant reduction in the procurement timescale from six to nine months to as little as four to six weeks, leading to reduced procurement costs. Obviously, that is beneficial for both the public sector and the suppliers.
With this, there are pre-agreed terms and conditions, meaning that contracting authorities can simply call off the framework to meet their requirements. They are usually set up with ceiling prices that can be further reduced by competition at the call-off stage. So the benefit of the dynamic market is that it remains open to all suppliers, which benefits SMEs in particular as they will not be locked out for long periods of time.
On how dynamic markets actually help companies—let us say SMEs, which I think was the gist of the noble Lord’s question—it may be that I need to provide more information, but here we are. The new dynamic markets will be open to new suppliers joining throughout their life, ensuring that no one is locked out from the market for long stretches of time. That will be beneficial to SMEs in particular, which can decide to apply to a dynamic market at any time via a process that will be much simpler and quicker than tendering for a framework.
I believe it will be best if I set out all this information and more in a letter. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment. Actually, these are government amendments, are they not?
“(6) A dynamic market or part of a dynamic market is “appropriate” for the purposes of this section if its terms permit the award of the contract by the contracting authority.(7) This section does not apply in relation to the award of a concession contract, unless the concession contract is also a utilities contract.(8) In this Act—“dynamic market” means arrangements established under section 35(1);references to a contract being awarded by reference to suppliers’ membership of a dynamic market are references to a contract being awarded in reliance on this section;references to suppliers’ membership of a dynamic market are references to suppliers’ participation in arrangements established under section 35(1).”
“(1A) In this Act a “utilities dynamic market” means a dynamic market established only for the purpose of the award of utilities contracts by utilities.”
“(1A) A condition set under subsection (1)(b) may relate to suppliers’ qualifications, experience or technical ability, but may not—(a) require suppliers to have been awarded a contract by a particular contracting authority,(b) break the rules on technical specifications in section 24, or(c) require particular qualifications without allowing for their equivalents.(1B) When considering whether a condition is proportionate for the purposes of subsection (1) a contracting authority must have regard to the nature, complexity and cost of contracts to be awarded by reference to suppliers’ membership of the market.(1C) A condition of membership may require the provision of evidence that is verifiable by a person other than the supplier.”
Lord Clement-Jones
“(c) if the contract is not included in a framework agreement.”
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I would be very happy if the Minister introduced my amendment, but in moving it I will also speak to Amendment 243A and Clause 40 stand part. My noble friend Lord Fox will speak to other Liberal Democrat amendments in this group that are in the names of my noble friends Lord Wallace and Lady Brinton. I know that my noble friend Lord Fox has congratulated the Minister already but it is the first time that I have spoken since I saw her on the Back Benches in our previous proceedings. I must congratulate her on her seamless move to the Front Bench—again.
Given the controversy surrounding these direct contracts, the removal of Clause 40 on direct awards would, pending greater transparency and equity for SMEs, be the preferable course. But these are specific amendments to Clauses 40 and 42, which would prevent direct awards being used within framework agreements and instead open all such awards to competition. This issue is seen all the time within the G-cloud framework; it prevents proper competition from British SMEs and simply reinforces the dominance of certain key foreign players in the market. These amendments would provide the opportunity to redress the balance and help support UK SMEs.
We will debate the role of frameworks later, but these amendments seek to highlight the blurring of direct award rules by smuggling in large, uncontested contracts within framework agreements. The notion that there is a ceiling above which such awards must be competed for, and below which they can be awarded directly, is theoretically sound if it is rigorously adhered to. We on these Benches would argue that the threshold of £250,000 is too high and that a figure of £100,000 would be more appropriate. I seek the Minister’s view on thresholds and how they are arrived at. However, thresholds are pointless if they are ignored or bypassed, which is what seems to be happening.
One very good example of where this system has completely gone off the rails is cloud computing. This important service is central to the Government’s digital plans. It seems that rarely is the ongoing cloud service bid seen as a separate service; rather, it is wrapped in a package being competed for through a framework agreement by the consulting giants. These consultants always seem to partner with one or other of the dominant, non-UK cloud services companies.
This has gradually led to a disproportionate level of awards to these companies. For example, in 2012-17, one company, Amazon Web Services, was awarded £25.5 million-worth of contracts from a total market worth £381.7 million—a market share of 7%. By 2018-22, its market share had ballooned to just a shade under 40%. In the current financial year alone, 2022-23, AWS has seen £87.7 million-worth of contracts from a total market of £137.6 million—a market share of 64%. The US federal Government estimate that the UK public cloud market was worth $12 billion in 2020 and growing, so AWS can expect a healthy $5 billion-plus, with Microsoft Azure not far behind. Almost none of this would have been opened up to competition.
Of course, in the UK, a company is deemed to have monopoly power if it holds more than 25% of the market. At the same time, the SME share of the market has fallen from more than 50% to just 20% in the last five years, and barely 10% this year. It simply reinforces the dominance of certain key foreign “hyperscalers” in this market. To be clear, it seems that these services are available from UK-based suppliers. We are not asking for preferential access for these UK suppliers, just that they are not locked out by the use of framework agreements in this way and the awards of direct contracts under them.
The Government talk about building a UK digital future, yet they systematically underwrite the development of non-UK businesses by ignoring their own rules. The Procurement Bill is supposedly designed, according to the Queen’s Speech, so that
“Public sector procurement will be simplified to provide new opportunities for small businesses.”
On top of this, the Crown Commercial Service’s own guidance on direct awards suggests that the procedure is suitable only for low-value, low-volume commodity products. In the case of AWS, some of the contracts, such as the Home Office contract, top £100 million in value, so they cannot be considered low-volume or low-value, nor can cloud hosting be considered a commodity, given the proprietary nature of the service and the consequences of that.
If the Government are true to their word, they will accept these amendments to ensure that the balance is redressed and UK SMEs are given a chance to compete on a level playing field. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 236 in this group. It probes the relationship between direct contract awards and framework contracts.
Direct awards are allowed under Clause 40 if they satisfy one of the justifications in Schedule 5, paragraph 8 of which allows them if they are similar to existing contracts for goods and services that have been entered into in the previous five years and in which the initial tender set out the intention to use the direct award justification. My amendment would change those five years to four years, specifically to probe the differences between a repeat direct award under Clause 40 and an award under a framework contract, as covered in Chapter 4 of Part 3.
Clause 45 says that a framework contract has a maximum duration of four years other than for defence and utilities contracts. Doubtless this is my ignorance speaking but I hope that my noble friend the Minister can explain to me the rationale for allowing five years for direct awards under Chapter 3 as opposed to four years for framework contracts under Chapter 4. My question is pretty simple: is there a substantive distinction between direct awards and awards under framework contracts, where the justification for the direct award is in paragraph 8 of Schedule 5?
It seems to me that this is another example of how the designers of this new procurement system have lost sight of simplicity and underlying principles in designing the system. However, there may be a good reason for that, of course; I look forward to my noble friend the Minister explaining it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly on Amendment 240 in particular, to which I would have attached my name had I noticed it in time. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. What he set out in terms of the problems of framework agreements are the kind of things we often encounter in the pages of Private Eye; it really is time that we saw some action on this issue.
Amendment 240
“is intended to prevent the future use of ‘VIP lanes’ for public contracts.”
I rather suspect that the nation out there, which is exhausted by politics, is probably not glued to your Lordships’ Grand Committee on the Procurement Bill this evening. I looked up the schedule: people are probably watching either “The Simpsons” or “Britain’s Parking Hell”. However, I know from what I get in my mailbag and what I see on social media that what happened during Covid with VIP lanes is a huge, continuing concern among large numbers of the British public. It was only last month that the Government were forced to admit that 50 firms had been put into the priority lane for test and trace contracts, worth billions. They included Immensa, a firm that was subsequently at the heart of more than 43,000 false negative results and had been incorporated only in May 2020. This came after the Good Law Project successfully challenged the Government’s VIP lane for personal protective equipment contracts.
So we have a situation where people are now looking at politics and saying, “We want to see things done differently”. This small, modest amendment would set a marker for achieving that; I feel that it deserves more attention both in this Room and outside it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have a few amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 235A, which was brought forward as a probing amendment so that we could consider the direct award of contracts in special circumstances. It is important that the Government both put on the record why there is a need for direct awards and explain properly the limited circumstances in which they can be used, so that things are completely clear. I also point out that, in certain scenarios, a contracting authority might be able to make a modification to an existing contract without following a competitive tendering procedure; in reality, that would have the effect of making a direct award. We need a bit of clarification around some of these issues.
The Bill introduces some changes that we would support in this area, including, for example, that the contracting authority would be obliged to publish a transparency notice in advance of making a direct award. We would very much support that. It is also interesting that Ministers will be empowered to designate specific contracts or categories of contracts that can be awarded directly in certain identified areas, such as in protecting life and for public security. It is good that we have a bit more meat on the bone in this area and on the issue around transparency.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard, Clause 41 covers the very important issue of direct awards that may be awarded to protect life.
The Covid pandemic tested our current systems but, in one particular area, the Government have now admitted that they created a VIP lane, under which at least 50 contracts for test and trace were expedited. Many other contracts for PPE and other core Covid contracts also circumvented the usual public procurement routes in the VIP lane, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Hayman, mentioned. That is why my noble friends Lord Wallace and Lady Brinton have tabled Amendments 238 to 241. I have already explained that my noble friend Lord Wallace cannot be here, and my noble friend Lady Brinton is participating in the Chamber.
These amendments say that regardless of the emergency, the principles of transparency, integrity, fairness and non-discrimination must be at the heart of any contract process. These are the diagnostics of a good, well-managed company. If these are not pursued, it is very unlikely that quality and delivery will be good; and that is what we have found—delivery was poor. The VIP lane was a particularly egregious mechanism that the Government used to encourage contractors to come forward to supply goods at short notice, irrespective of those qualities that I have just listed. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money was used to provide contracts, including, as we have heard, to firms that had no experience of test and trace or the provision of PPE. This is not just a waste of money: one test and trace firm’s testing kits gave many thousands of erroneous false-negative results, which meant that people believed that they did not have Covid and went around the country infecting people accidentally, causing illness and possibly death. We do not know how many or how much.
PPE kit worth billions has already been and is being incinerated by the NHS, because it did not meet the required safety standards. It could not meet the quality standard, because it did not have the management controls and processes, nor the integrity, to meet it; it was not checked, because of the fast-track process. One common element is that it was parliamentarians—virtually all Conservatives—who introduced the companies that received this preferential treatment over and above existing, experienced suppliers and experts. There are many examples of this. Worse, the BMA reports that thousands of doctors ended up buying their own PPE, because they knew that the stuff that the Government were providing them with was substandard.
From our Front Benches and in private meetings with Ministers, despite repeated questioning, it was almost impossible to get answers about these appalling processes. Two years later, the truth is really beginning to emerge. Friends of Conservative parliamentarians were given unfair advantage in obtaining contracts, as we just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. That is bad enough, but the waste from those contracts is a stain on this Government’s procurement activities. It must never happen again.
Amendment 240 makes it plain that provision must not confer any preferential treatment on suppliers connected to or recommended by Members of the House of Commons or House of Lords. If the Minister resists this amendment, these Benches will also oppose that Clause 41 stands part of the Bill. As currently written, it does not prevent the procurement processes from this debacle happening again.
Can the Minister answer the following questions? Does she believe that Clause 41, in its current form, protects against abuse of a future emergency process similar to the VIP lane that this Government used, which has proven to be untransparent and to favour colleagues of parliamentarians? In other words, does Clause 41 stop this happening again? Does she recognise that now is the time to say that this must never happen again? And does she recognise that these amendments are a mechanism to ensure that we do not get a repeat of this?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this is a rather confusing group, so I will start by speaking to the two government amendments. Amendment 237 removes duplication of the direct award ground, which is adequately covered in Clause 41; and Amendment 245 requires appropriate assessment prior to the direct award of whether a supplier previously submitted an unsuitable tender.
Looking at the group in the round, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised Amendment 235A, so that we could rightly debate the direct award of contracts; and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in his absence, gave notice of his intention to object to Clauses 40 and 41—I think because he wants to understand what is happening and wants answers to some of the questions that have been put by the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Clause 40 permits a direct award to a supplier, other than an excluded supplier, if a justification in Schedule 5 is met. This is based on the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Government Procurement grounds for limited tendering and is similar to the current law. We have been commended by external stakeholders for bringing clarity to the justifications and reducing the risk of unintended use of these provisions. As the noble Baroness said, publication of transparency notices is an extremely important development.
Just to let noble Lords know, I will deal with standstill provisions in the next group so, in the interests of time, will not cover them in this group. But I will deal here, a little later, with sunset clauses, which the noble Baroness also raised.
I was very interested to hear the explanation for Amendments 235ZA and 243A from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. He made a lot of points that I was not aware of, which I will study, in relation to the important areas of cloud computing and UK businesses. But I make clear that existing frameworks allow contracting authorities to buy cloud-based services separately, rather than in a package. In this way, SMEs are encouraged to provide services directly to the public sector, which is something that we are keen that they do.
Frameworks are of course created following a competition and they create a period of uncertainty on contractual terms, albeit they allow a closed list for contracts to be awarded, so it makes sense that they are for a limited duration—I think that is what the noble Lord was asking about. This should not lock out competitors for too long. Directly awarded contracts have a shorter duration for a different rationale: they allow contracting authorities to put alternative arrangements in place. That is the rationale, and we worry that the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would add more time as an unnecessary burden on contracting authorities by mandating them to check for and use available framework agreements, even where these might not be appropriate. Requiring them to keep within existing arrangements can actually stifle innovation and new entrants, particularly where the prototype in development ground is being used. The framework formalities, which may include a requirement for competitive process, may be impractical in cases such as those of extreme urgency.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, before the Minister finishes, I have two points. On the big question, I asked whether she thought that Clause 41 would prevent the VIP lane problems resurfacing or coming back. It would be good to get an answer to that, either now or later. In the Minister’s response on Amendment 239, I thought I heard her say that provisions in other parts of the Bill around operating ethically are, in spirit, reflected in Clause 41. “In spirit” is a very difficult concept to understand in law. I hope we can find a way of perhaps stiffening the spirit and making it actual. If there is a read-across, we need to find a way—either at the Dispatch Box, in some Pepper v Hart way, or within the words—to ensure that what the Minister says, which I take to be in good faith, is usable in the outside world once the Bill becomes an Act.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Perhaps I might add that what the Minister said makes a lot of sense and is helpful, but one of the problems we have is that we do not know how effective it is going to be and whether it would work until we get into that situation again. Is there any ability to build in a review once the system has been tested, perhaps against a major public problem like we had with Covid-19?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think our intention is to try to get rid of the VIP lanes. I will take the point away but there is a committee sitting—it will unfortunately sit for a long time, no doubt—that is looking at a lot of these important issues, and at some of these lessons. It is doing things in phases, so hopefully we will begin to get some output soon. We have had the Boardman review and, as the Committee can hear, we have tried in this Bill to learn from that and not to have a preferential system. The point about non-discrimination and such things is in the same spirit. I will take away the point about spirit and what we are doing here, but we have some good things in the Bill. I have listened to what the Committee has said but also tried to convince your Lordships about what we are trying to do.
I am advised that Clause 41 would prevent VIP lanes, as regulators will set out in advance what direct awards are permitted and Parliament would not approve anything too wide-ranging—I am sure that is true. The other point is that the Bill’s provisions on conflicts, which I am sure we will come on to debate further, also help against VIP lanes. We have quite a lot of things going on here; obviously, I am worried about piling it on. Everybody is concerned, so they all come in with different suggestions for trying to improve things. But if you pile those one on the other, you end up with rules that are too burdensome and do not work too well.
On the issue of a review, I think my noble friend Lady Noakes referred to some sort of review clause at an earlier juncture. “Review” is something that one tends to write into Bills where you have a problem. Perhaps we can discuss this further before Report to see whether a review is the right thing or whether enough is going on to try to ensure that we are in a good place on the Covid front. I respectfully request that the various amendments are withdrawn, and I would like to move the government amendments in my name.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that, where amendments are grouped, only the first amendment is moved. The others must be moved or not moved as they are reached on the Marshalled List.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it falls to me as the mover of the lead amendment to respond to the Minister. Clearly, there was quite a lot in what she said and we will need to brood over Hansard when the time comes because there are a large number of issues here. I recognise the Minister’s track record on SMEs but I am somewhat amazed that the Government have been commended on bringing greater clarity, as she put it, because our intention was to provide much greater clarity—and, indeed, equity—in all of this for SMEs. In terms of the addition of more time, burden and so on, I believe the Minister would normally think that we should go the extra mile for SMEs in these circumstances.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Certainly. We have discussed SMEs before; we have gone away to have a look at that issue. I recently held a round table with SMEs. Basically, they were positive about the Bill. Clearly, we have to see through and teach them about the new proposals. The basic point is that there are fewer different ways forward. I was quite surprised that that was the case but clearly there is complexity, and we have got to make sure that the Bill is in the right form.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I think it partly depends on the market that is covered by particular SMEs. I could probably produce a range of SMEs that are not quite as pleased with their lot. Of course, that is partly the theme that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I have been talking about in terms of the UK cloud market.
I appreciate the fact that—stop press—it appears that the intention of Clause 41 is to prevent VIP lanes, because, let us face it, that is lesson number one from Covid. I hope that that is correct, but no doubt we will read carefully how and in what respect it gets rid of VIP lanes.
More broadly, virtually everyone who contributed to this debate wants to see a much clearer set of underlying principles—the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was clear on this—around how direct awards relate to framework agreements. I do not believe that we have seen that yet. Assurance from a Minister is one thing but seeing it in black and white in the legislation is another. I thought that the phrase “safe from challenge”, used by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was exactly right. We have seen only too clearly what happens when there is no clarity; the Randox contract was an absolutely classic example of that. All of us hope that that will not happen again and hope to see a competitive market for our SMEs. However, I think we will probably have to return to this issue on Report.
In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(b) submitted an unsuitable tender or request in response to the invitation referred to in subsection (1)(a).”
Lord Aberdare
“(2) A “framework” is a contract between one or more contracting authorities and one or more suppliers that provides for the future award of contracts by a contracting authority to the supplier or suppliers, including through a multi-party framework alliance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that sections 44, 45, 46 and 47 governing ‘Award under Frameworks’ include the practices of leading public sector framework providers such as Crown Commercial Service whose framework contracts for goods, services and works include multi-party instruments known as ‘framework alliances’ that are entered into by multiple contracting authorities.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I start by joining the chorus of welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in her new ministerial post. It brings back happy memories since it was almost exactly seven years ago in this Room that I proposed an amendment to the then Enterprise Bill concerning the pernicious practice of cash retentions, to which the noble Baroness gave a positive commitment in response. I am delighted to be trying my luck again today.
Amendment 245A would simply extend the scope of Clauses 44 to 47 to cater for framework alliances. These are multiparty framework contracts entered into by multiple contracting authorities, which are increasingly being used by leading framework providers such as the Crown Commercial Service. Framework alliances are recognised and supported by the Construction Playbook, as well as by Constructing the Gold Standard: An Independent Review of Public Sector Construction Frameworks by Professor David Mosey, published by the Cabinet Office last December, whose recommendations are strongly endorsed in the 2022 version of the Construction Playbook.
The use of UK public sector framework alliances has been shown to deliver greater value, reduce risks and other improved outcomes as well as enhanced opportunities for small businesses. They have been adopted for UK public sector procurements of goods, services and works worth a total of more than £90 billion. They include important joint systems of supply chain collaboration and joint risk management that are well in advance of those adopted in jurisdictions outside the UK.
Amendment 245A would merely adjust the wording of Clause 44(2) to ensure that the definition of frameworks includes such multiparty framework alliances. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that these alliances will be covered by the provisions of this chapter of the Bill, even if not in the exact form of my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 247, 248 and 249 in this group. This is my first chance to make what I regard as a substantive contribution and to welcome my noble friend to her Front-Bench responsibilities. Speaking as a poacher these several years, our loss is the Government’s gain—and hopefully the Committee’s gain, too; as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, quite rightly said, the fact that my noble friend has already evidenced interest in the Bill is a positive signal to start off with.
I will not go on at great length. I declare an interest in that my wife’s company, with which I work, has been involved in a number of framework contracts. They are all in Brussels and nothing to do with the UK Government. They relate to the European Commission, to NATO and so on.
Without going on at length about framework contracts, everybody can see why they might be a useful thing for contracting authorities to use. They enable them to establish a group of suppliers who have the necessary credentials, capacity and so on, and they are then able to call them off at relatively short notice for these purposes. Everybody can understand that. The problem is that this is not always how they are used. What often happens is that you end up with something that is a speculative framework; we have experienced a number of occasions where no subsequent work has been offered under that framework, so all the original work in relation to that framework was nugatory. Sometimes, the frameworks need subsequent further competitions and a range of suppliers that have all been included in the framework. The subsequent competitions are, frankly, no less onerous than the original competition would have been, the only difference often being that they are done at much shorter notice than the original tenders were required to be. That can impose all kinds of difficulties, especially on SMEs. I declare an interest: our company is an SME in the European procurement context.
So why these amendments? My amendments—particularly, for this purpose, Amendments 247 and 248 —are about at least trying to intrude the idea that the original framework competition ought to rank suppliers. Then, the suppliers who are ranked have some idea of how this is going to work. I have seen the positive benefit of that since, from time to time, we have engaged in this and it has become clear that the contracting authority is going to have what it describes as a cascade. A cascade outcome for a framework competition leaves suppliers in a much clearer position as to their future potential work because you learn that, if a requirement is likely to come forward, it is going to be offered to the number one supplier first. If they do not want to take it, it will cascade down, so you do not have to engage in a lot of additional activity.
I saw no evidence that this description of frameworks entertains cascade-style framework competitions. I thought it should so I tried to write something that did not mandate a cascade, but at least allowed for that possibility. Happily, one of the things that I also thought that cascade help you to do is focus more on the original framework competition as a basis for the subsequent selection of suppliers. That is why, when my noble friend comes to introduce Amendment 246, I will be particularly glad to see proposed new subsection (3G), which says that the competitive selection process that might be undertaken subsequent to the framework for the selection of suppliers should be
“only be by reference to one or more of the award criteria against which tenders were assessed in awarding the framework.”
It therefore entrenches the original framework competition in terms of the way in which subsequent contracts are to be offered.
The point of my Amendment 247 is to introduce that concept of the ranking of suppliers for the cascade. It would therefore move the reference to an objective mechanism for supplier selection under Amendment 248 into the subsequent subsection. Amendment 248 would also address another concern I had: when a contracting authority is making an award of a contract using a framework, it often has a wider range of potential suppliers with different capacities and so on. If there is going to be a supplier selection, it should always give suppliers an opportunity at least to tell the contracting authority what their credentials, capacity, quality and potential value may be. It may exclude value if they say they can only use the price that has already been supplied, for example for staff and so on, but none the less, credentials and capacity to meet a specific requirement should always be something that suppliers are given an opportunity to show. I am not sure that, without this measure, an objective mechanism for supplier selection actually means that. I do not know what “objective mechanism” means in this context. I am hoping that Amendment 246 gets us to a much better place. If it entails any kind of competition, that has to be done by reference to the original award criteria.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I apologise to the Committee for being late; I have literally just got off an aeroplane. Like others, I welcome the Minister to her place. I will welcome some of the acrobatics she may have to do on Report now that she is sitting there rather than next to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, as she was earlier in these Committee proceedings.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just spoken a lot of sense. I declare my interest as someone who advises a company that works with frameworks. I have seen some games played with frameworks, though not by the company I advise, with frameworks used for a number of purposes completely alien to why the original contract framework was set. It debars competition and innovation, particularly when the public body decides that it wants something completely tangential to the original framework contract and the original purpose, and allows a company to continue building its commercial relationship with that public sector body without necessarily having the core competences required. It then goes into a lot of partnerships with adjunct companies that have no relationship back to the original company when the framework was initially set.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in trying to work out, in his Amendment 249, what the fee purpose is in terms of companies going around the framework. I particularly agree with him on the issue of small and medium-sized enterprises. I think this would be a block in that field for SMEs in particular. Could the Minister explain a little more about the reason for the fee, how it will allow competition and how it will not debar SMEs in particular from this type of framework agreement if it is to continue?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we are getting into some detail now. That is the purpose of Committee and it is very constructive and informative. I very much agreed with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, about framework alliances and whether Clauses 44 to 47 include such alliances. If they do not, why not? The noble Lord’s point requires a simple answer: yes, they do, or no, they do not. He has asked an important question about the inclusion of framework alliances.
Similarly, I thought the points of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, were really well made. Amendments 247, 248 and 249 have been put down specifically to ask the Minister whether the Government’s new subsection (3G) answers some of those points. That is the sort of detail we need to get into, as the cascade principle is really important. I think the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also supported that.
I have a couple of specific points on the importance of transparency and openness, which we are all striving for. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked the Minister about what “value for money” means; that could almost be taken as a trick remark but it is crucial, as these sorts of definitions are really important. Therefore, can the Minister say what “proportionate” means in government Amendment 246? One person’s “proportionate” would be to allow people to get through without proper checks. However, without “proportionate”, the burden on some businesses and suppliers would be completely unacceptable—just too much and unrealistic. It would be helpful for the Committee to understand the use of “proportionate” in new subsections (3A) and (3D) and “may not” in new subsection (3C).
Government Amendment 246 talks about proportionate means of ensuring that suppliers have the relevant
“qualifications, experience or technical ability”
to perform a contract. It would be helpful if the Minister said a bit more about what that means.
More generally, since we are discussing Clauses 44 to 47, can the Minister explain why so many respondents to the Government’s consultation opposed open frameworks? Some 27% of the respondents did so. Is that a high negative response? I am not sure whether it is high or low, but it struck me as quite a lot. The Government did not agree with that view and ploughed on with Clause 47.
On Clause 45(3), can the Minister explain what sort of reasons there could be for a framework to exceed the normal eight years for a defence and security contract and four years for other frameworks? The Government seem to believe there might be a necessity to clarify that through their own Amendment 251, which seeks to clarify some of that but also reflects a concern about the number of years that could apply to a contract. That would be helpful.
Our limited discussion on the use of frameworks has been very important; it has sought to get into some of the details, which are what mean they do or do not work well—sometimes on the basis of what a particular word means. Like many noble Lords, I read the assessment in preparing for this Committee; you can see the point the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made in our earlier debate about a cry for clarity on what the Government are seeking to achieve. What different words mean is crucial. Building on the noble Lord’s plea to know what “value for money” means, a little more about what “proportionate”, et cetera, means in the context of government Amendment 246 would be helpful. The Minister may need a little more time to reflect on that but, if you are seeking a contract under a framework, the word “proportionate” will mean everything—or nothing. It would be very helpful if the Minister could clarify that.
With that, I think the Government have taken some very important steps forward under these clauses.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Scriven, and my noble friend Lord Lansley, for their kind words.
I will start with the government amendments, because even though this will not be in strict order, it will help to answer the other points that have been raised. Frameworks are a well-established commercial purchasing tool, used widely across the public sector. Having looked at some of the public responses, that percentage figure that was quoted is not worrying. Key is whether this is a sensible provision and whether we are reforming them in the correct way. The Bill makes a number of improvements to the effectiveness of frameworks, to increase flexibility, provide value for money, et cetera.
I am glad that the noble Lord referred to government Amendment 246 because it is quite a substantial and important amendment among the hundreds that I apologise for having tabled in Committee. It allows contracting authorities to set conditions of participation in a competitive selection process for the award of a contract under a framework. New subsections (3A) to (3F) impose restrictions on the use of such conditions to those which apply to conditions of participation in a competitive tendering procedure under Clause 21. These include limiting the conditions in various ways, for example, to those which are a proportionate means of ensuring that suppliers have the relevant qualifications, experience and technical ability to perform the contract, of ensuring that the conditions do not break the rules on technical specifications, and of requiring that equivalents must be allowed where particular qualifications are required. The question on proportionality is a good one. I do not have as good an answer for the noble Lord as I would like, so I will write to him on that point.
My noble friend Lord Lansley commended new subsection (3G). This restricts the basis on which proposals received as part of a competitive selection process under a framework can be assessed to all or some of the award criteria against which tenders the frameworks were assessed. This is to ensure that suppliers that have already been admitted to a framework do not have to meet entirely different criteria later. New subsection (3H) allows for the award criteria to be refined.
Government Amendments 251 to 255, and 258 to 260, relate to rules for frameworks for the future award of contracts. The remaining government amendments in this group deal variously with light-touch contracts, ensuring open frameworks work as intended, and with minor tidying-up changes.
Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the thing that we worked on together when I was last a Minister is still unresolved, so I feel a sense of guilt.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I agree with the objective behind the noble Lord’s Amendment 245A. There is a need for this Bill to ensure that multiple contracting authorities may join to award a framework. Frameworks can result in significant savings, financially and in time, and they say that time is money. This is particularly the case where they are put in place for the benefit of more than one contracting authority, for example by centralised procurement authorities.
To that end, Clause 10 provides for contracting authorities to carry out procurements jointly and for centralised procurement authorities to put in place arrangements for the benefit of other contracting authorities. This enables them to delegate their obligations to run lawful procurements to centralised procurement authorities, in their capacity as specialists, or to jointly procure with them and remain responsible, together with their procurement partners, for the award of any resulting contract. The noble Lord will wish to look carefully at that, but I do not think that his amendment is necessary.
Amendments 247 and 248, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, seek to add additional requirements for the award of contracts under frameworks, without a further competitive process. The first of these, a system based on the suppliers’ ranking in the competition for the award of the framework—the noble Lord talked of a cascade; we have talked of ranking—is certainly one mechanism by which contracts can be awarded under a framework without a competition. However, this is only one selection mechanism, and there are others. They might include a “taxi rank” system, where the next supplier on the list gets the work, or the supplier chosen could simply be the cheapest for that good or service, which contracting authorities might consider to be more appropriate for their requirements on that occasion. There is nothing in the Bill preventing contracting authorities from including rankings in a framework, but there is no need to require this for all frameworks.
The second requirement is to allow for the provision of additional information by suppliers in order to make an award without a competition. In this connection, I draw noble Lords’ attention to Clause 44(6), which allows contracting authorities to ask for additional information to ensure that call off competitions are effective. Sorry, that is a bit repetitive. This seems preferable to receiving large amounts of potentially unnecessary or irrelevant information and adding burdens to the award process, which we are all keen to avoid.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response. I am encouraged that she agrees with the objective that framework allowances will be covered by the Bill. I will look at what she said and how she says that they will be covered, but my main objective with this rather simple amendment was to ensure that allowances were covered.
The noble Lords, Lord Lansley, Lord Scriven and Lord Coaker, raised a number of much more substantive amendments. I do not really feel able to respond on their behalf, but I was glad that the Minister said she would come back on the issue of proportionality, which is particularly important. I am sure the other noble Lords will look carefully at the issues of fees, cascading and so forth. I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(3A) A competitive selection process may provide for conditions of participation only if the contracting authority is satisfied that the conditions are a proportionate means of ensuring that suppliers party to the framework have—(a) the legal and financial capacity to perform the contract, or(b) the technical ability to perform the contract. (3B) In this section, a “condition of participation” means a condition that a supplier must satisfy in order to be awarded a public contract in accordance with the framework.(3C) A condition set under subsection (3A)(b) may relate to suppliers’ qualifications, experience or technical ability, but may not—(a) require suppliers to have been awarded a contract under the framework or by a particular contracting authority,(b) break the rules on technical specifications in section 24, or(c) require particular qualifications without allowing for their equivalents.(3D) When considering whether a condition is proportionate for the purposes of subsection (3A), a contracting authority must have regard to the nature, complexity and cost of the public contract.(3E) A condition of participation may require the provision of evidence that is verifiable by a person other than the supplier.(3F) If a supplier does not satisfy a condition of participation, the contracting authority may exclude the supplier from participating in, or progressing as part of, the competitive selection process.(3G) A competitive selection process may provide for the assessment of proposals, but only by reference to one or more of the award criteria against which tenders were assessed in awarding the framework.(3H) The award criteria may be refined for the purposes of subsection (3G).”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(9) Subsections (3) to (5) do not apply to a framework that is a light touch contract (see section 8(5)).”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(c) a framework that is a light touch contract (see section 8(5)).”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(2A) An open framework may provide that, if a framework expires in accordance with subsection (2)(b) while a process for the award of a contract in accordance with the framework is ongoing, the contracting authority may continue the process and award the contract as though the framework had not expired.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, this group deals with Parts 9 and 10 of the Bill. Providing suppliers with an effective remedy is not only required by the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Government Procurement, the GPA—a very important international agreement—but a critical aspect to any well-functioning and accountable procurement regime. It gives the market confidence to invest resources participating in government procurement, knowing that public contracts will be awarded fairly and transparently.
As such, in most cases, suppliers have 30 days from the point at which a breach should have been discovered to raise a claim, and in the majority of procurements a standstill period will apply. The standstill period of eight working days is a short pause between the point when the contract award decision is notified to bidders and the final contract conclusion. It allows bidders to consider the assessment summary, which includes evaluation feedback.
If a claim is filed at court during the standstill period, an automatic suspension will apply, preventing signature of the contract until the legal claim is resolved or the suspension is lifted on application of the contracting authority. If the standstill passes without challenge, it protects against the contract being set aside after it goes live. Clearly, we do not want court proceedings to be the only way to motivate contracting authorities’ compliance with the new Act, which is why we have introduced the procurement oversight regime in Part 10, which will enable an appropriate authority to investigate non-compliance, make recommendations and issue guidance across all contracting authorities, as a result of the investigations. This will encourage the consistency and continuous improvement we all want to see.
Government Amendments 263 and 266 correct the reference to the contract award notice in Clause 49(1)(b) and (4) respectively.
Amendments 265, 267, 393 and 394 make it clear that any time a contracting authority chooses to enter into a standstill period, which is known as a voluntary standstill period in circumstances where the Bill does not mandate a standstill period, it must match the mandatory standstill period and be for a minimum of eight working days.
Amendment 461 clarifies that failure to have regard to the national or Welsh procurement policy statements is not enforceable via Part 9.
Amendments 464 to 469 make some textual amendments and make it clear that the automatic suspension applies only when a claim has been notified during the standstill period.
The structure and drafting of Clause 95 will be amended by Amendments 470 to 476 to make the intent of the clause easier to interpret.
There are various amendments related to oversight functions. Amendment 481 to Clause 96 makes a straightforward clarification to the meaning of “section 97 recommendation”. Amendments 483 and 484 reflect the principle that an appropriate authority may issue guidance to contracting authorities only in line with restrictions on relevant authorities in Clauses 99 to 101. Amendments 501 and 502 amend Clause 101 to reflect agreements with devolved authorities that, where appropriate, UK government Ministers can issue guidance under Clause 98 to all contracting authorities, including devolved and transferred authorities, to maximise joint working and efficiency.
I pause at this point so that my noble friend Lady Noakes and others can speak to their amendments.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have several amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 264, a probing amendment to find out why standstill periods, which are generally required by Clause 49, are not required for light-touch contracts or those awarded in dynamic markets. My amendment would achieve this by deleting paragraphs (d) and (e) from Clause 49(3).
As my noble friend just explained, the standstill period is a short pause after the publication of the contract award notice in order to allow an agreed bidder the opportunity to complain about a contract before the contract is finalised. This is a sensible part of the framework because challenging a contract after it has commenced is much less effective and is best avoided. The purpose of my amendment is to ask my noble friend to say what public policy grounds would deprive unsuccessful bidders of the opportunity to challenge contract awards under the light-touch or dynamic market regimes. What specifically are the features of those regimes that are suitable to override the rights of unsuccessful bidders, compared with other contracts?
My next amendments, Amendments 477 to 480, would have the effect of ensuring that procurement oversight extends to all procurement covered by the Bill. Clause 96 allows for investigations into compliance with the Bill, but excludes government departments, Welsh Ministers, Northern Ireland departments and utilities from its scope. My simple question to my noble friend is: why? She cannot possibly tell me that these contracting authorities are such paragons of virtue when it comes to procurement that they would always comply with the Bill. Government departments do not have a perfect track record on procurement and, in my view, ought to be capable of being investigated.
My final amendment in this group, Amendment 482, concerns the recommendations that can be made following a Clause 96 investigation. Clause 97(3) says that these recommendations “must not relate to” how to comply with the procurement objectives set out in Clause 11; must not recommend how the contracting authority should have regard to the Section 12 national procurement policy statement; and must not say how the authority should
“exercise a discretion in relation to a particular procurement.”
I can just about understand the last one, because recommendations should not interfere with
“discretion in relation to a particular procurement”,
but I do not understand why recommendations have to steer clear of procurement objectives or the NPPS. What is the point of making recommendations if the heart of the procurement rules, to be found in Clauses 11 and 12, are off limits? For example, is value for money off limits in an investigation because it is an objective within Clause 11? I cannot understand why that should be excluded. My amendment is to delete subsection (3) on a probing basis, to give my noble friend the opportunity to explain what all this is about.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I speak in place of my noble friend Lord Wallace on Amendments 349A, 349B and 353A, all of which refer to and reflect on the procurement review unit. On page 13 of Transforming Public Procurement: Government Response to Consultation, at points 46 to 49, the Government say:
“We have revised the proposals for this new unit. It will be known as the Procurement Review Unit (PRU), sitting within the Cabinet Office and will be made up of a small team of civil servants.”
They go on to detail quite fully what the PRU is—I will come back to its role and autonomy in a minute—but where is it in the Bill? Amendment 349A seeks to replace “An appropriate authority” with the promised “Procurement Review Unit”. Amendment 349B would give a role for the procurement review unit to advise. More specifically, in Amendment 353A we seek the insertion of the nature of the procurement review unit.
All these amendments are trying to probe where the Government got to between the consultation and the drafting of this legislation, and why in effect there is no PRU in the Bill. What happened to it and who has got it? When the Minister no doubt notices and reinserts it on our behalf, what will its role and its level of autonomy be? How many teeth are the Government prepared to give this PRU, and will it essentially have those teeth drawn? Essentially, where is it?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 477A and 486A in my name. I thank my noble friend Lady Hayman, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, who is not able to be with us today, for their support.
The amendment addresses procurement investigations. It would add, at the end of line 28 on page 60,
“and the implementation of social value”.
It would require the new procurement investigations authority to be able to investigate the implementation of social value. There are regular reports of public bodies that have secured promised social-value outcomes from contractors—apprenticeships, jobs created, investment in local infrastructure and so on—but these are not delivered. As social value is weighted in tenders, organisations can win tenders to deliver social value but may not always deliver the social value that they have promised.
The amendment would give the new procurement investigations authority the ability to investigate whether public bodies were securing social-value commitments that had been promised and to be able to report on that to Parliament. Currently there is no part of government that is bound to collect information on the implementation of social value. Indeed, the Cabinet Office had started to do this for central government through the social value model, but that is not comprehensive. Social value is just as much value as financial value, and the new procurement investigations authority should take social value seriously. This would have the added benefit of increasing awareness of the importance of social value in the public sector.
Amendment 486A would add a new clause. Because social enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises often complain about barriers to accessing contracts in the public sector, which this Committee has discussed at some length, the proposed new clause would seek to ensure that the new procurement investigations authority would have expertise from the social enterprise sector and the SME sector so that they could ensure that contracting authorities were carrying out procurement exercises in a way that was fair to the sector.
Despite the Government’s commitment to expanding the role of social enterprises, voluntary organisations and SMEs in winning public sector contracts, that has not taken place. Research by DCMS estimates that only 5% of contracts are being won by voluntary sector or social enterprise organisations. Only one in five pounds of public procurement, 21%, is going to SMEs despite a 33% target. The amendment would give the new procurement investigations authority the expertise to be able to investigate whether contracting authorities were doing what they could to help SMEs and social enterprises to win contracts fairly.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on the issues that she raises. When the Government and Whitehall look through the prism of public sector procurement, that tends to lead to a very centralist approach that is about value for money, not for the taxpayer but for government departments. Sometimes things are not exactly in line with each other. There are many areas up and down this country where social value could really be added to if the Government, through primary legislation, understood what social value was and therefore ensured that in the Bill, when every single public sector procurement body in the land was awarding and using criteria to judge a contract and a supplier’s tender, that became vital.
The second issue on that refers back to something I think my noble friend Lord Fox said earlier, although I was not in the Committee at the time. The definition of such issues regarding social value are vital, because social value means many things to many different people. It is not to put contractors into a straitjacket. They can still innovate as long as there is a definition and a framework of what social value means. It is vital that the Government understand that it needs to be there as a guide for contractors, not as a straitjacket.
Also based on what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, the voices of the third sector, or the charity sector, and small to medium-sized enterprises need to be central to how procurement and social value are aligned within the Bill and public sector procurement. I remember being leader of Sheffield City Council. The thing that amazed me was the innovation and what happened if we brought the voice of the charity sector and small to medium-sized enterprises into how we were working. We did not call it social value then; it was to improve our place. It was place-based procurement at the time. They could change the dial completely about how procurement was done. We therefore had a view across the authority about how it was done based on some of the words, concepts and ideas that charities and small to medium-sized enterprises had. Those became a policy driver for procurement. It is therefore vital that the Government think carefully about the concept of social value, and what it means in the framework in the Bill, rather than just being loose words which many people define differently, or this will end up not having the maximum value in communities up and down the land.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, this has been another interesting debate. This group is on oversight and remedies. If you are going to have something worth legislating for, it has to have some sort of oversight and remedy. In other words, you have to see whether you are achieving what you wanted to and, if not, know what you going to do about it. It is therefore an important section, but to do that you have to have the right fundamentals in the Bill to have oversight and remedy.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Thornton’s amendment. She has been consistent throughout this Committee in trying to ensure that the Bill reflects the importance of social value. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, supported that in his remarks. I know my noble friend will continue to argue for it, and we will support her should she wish to take it further on Report. It is really important, and I thank her for that.
As we are coming to the end of our remarks, I shall say that I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on Amendment 353A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on what has happened to the procurement review unit. It was in a Green Paper and it seemed to be universally applauded—except, obviously, somewhere in government, so it was struck out. It would be interesting to know why it was struck out. Everybody supported it, except the Government, so why were they wrong and the Government right? Sometimes I find it baffling to understand why something is done. A procurement review unit seems essential to review what you are seeking to achieve. It is not a weakness but a strength. Those are my remarks about that.
I have to say this openly to the Committee: I am devastated that I did not notice the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes: Amendment 477. Honestly, it is absolutely brilliant. The noble Lord, Lord True, has been promoted for being a socialist in charge of the Bill; the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is on her way; and now we have this from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Clause 96 is quite astonishing. I reread it to make sure; when I read it before, it completely passed me by. I will read it out, because people will not understand if they read Hansard without also reading this. Clause 96(1) says:
“An appropriate authority may investigate a relevant contracting authority’s compliance with requirements of this Act.”
So, we have a really important government Bill that will become law, and then, in subsection (5):
“In this section—‘procurement investigation’ means an investigation under subsection (1)”—
which I have just read out—
“‘relevant contracting authority’ means a contracting authority”,
as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, points out,
“other than … a Minister of the Crown or a government department”
and various others. Why would the Government set up something that is desperately important—in other words, a procurement unit—which makes purchases of hundreds of billions of pounds, but their own Bill says they will not investigate them?
Amendment 477 is brilliant and, as I say, I am devastated that I did not think of it or notice it. Fair play—I am very fair. More seriously, the amendment points out something that fundamentally seems to be a flaw in the way the Bill is drafted. Otherwise, there must be some incredible explanation or reason that I cannot think of—I do not know if anyone else on the Committee can think of any.
To finish, oversight and remedies are an extremely important part of any Bill, because that is how you ensure that what you seek to achieve is achieved and that you are held accountable. The amendments seek to answer those questions. Unless the Minister is able to respond in a way that persuades us, I think there are certainly one or two issues that we must come back to. With that I will sit down. It is a brilliant amendment, honestly.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank noble Lords for an interesting debate on these non-government amendments. I do not think that I have a perfect reply to my noble friend Lady Noakes’s three questions. We are due to meet to discuss various aspects of the Bill and I would like to explore her questions further, and then perhaps I can write to the Committee when it is clear to me what the right replies to those questions are.
I will attempt to comment on the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has just talked about, on why government departments do not have the same obligation to have regard to recommendations under Clause 97. It is a simple question, and our response is that it is not necessary to include government departments in Clause 96 and 97, because the appropriate authorities have sufficient influence over contracting authorities to ensure that any recommendations that result from an investigation are duly taken into consideration. To confirm, investigations, findings and progress reports may be published by the relevant authority acting as a further incentive. It is simply unnecessary to provide statutory powers in respect of government departments, whereas due to the different relationship with non-central contracting authorities, statutory powers were required to ensure appropriate engagements for these purposes. As noble Lords will know, we have quite a well-developed procurement operation now, right at the heart of Government, sitting in the Cabinet Office, which I think is an improvement. That is why it is not provided for in the Bill.
Just before I leave voluntary standstills, let me say that I will make sure we come back properly on the exchange we had earlier. We want to maintain voluntary standstills for dynamic markets—they are intended to be quick to use, agile and efficient, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Lansley—and for light-touch contracts, which are often for time-sensitive services such as the provision of health and social care. We do not want to make the light-touch contract rules stricter in this regard than current legislation, as we think that could lead to some problems.
Amendments 349A, 349B and 353A were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and others. They seek to legislate for the procurement review unit with a new clause. The procurement review unit, which is very important, is not specifically referenced in the Bill as it will be exercising statutory and non-statutory powers on behalf of Ministers. The proposed new clauses would therefore conflict with existing provisions. Furthermore, considering the importance and potential implications of the decisions the PRU will support the Minister of the day in making—the proper statutory process—we believe it would be inappropriate to delegate that ultimate responsibility to unelected officials below ministerial level.
The PRU will work on behalf of the Minister of the day in two key areas. The first area is debarments. Clauses 56 to 61 set out the process for the establishment of a debarment list of excluded and excludable suppliers; this has already been debated. Under these clauses, it is envisaged that the PRU will investigate whether a supplier is subject to an exclusion ground and whether the issues in question are likely to arise again. The PRU will issue advice to the relevant Minister, usually the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who will take the final decision whether to add the supplier to the debarment list.
The second area is improving compliance with the Bill. Clauses 96 to 98 provide the framework and statutory powers required for carrying out procurement oversight. The PRU will exercise these oversight functions on behalf of the Minister and make proposals regarding any investigations, recommendations and statutory guidance it considers appropriate for the Minister’s ultimate approval.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will have a little more to say about this later on, so why not let me finish? If I do not answer the noble Lord’s questions, we will try to get at what is needed.
Amendments 477 to 480 seek to examine why government departments have been excluded from the appropriate authority’s investigatory powers. The definition of “relevant contracting authority” in Clause 96 is in recognition of existing governance. Ministers already have the authority to investigate government departments without the need for statutory powers; I think I have said that already. There are also established routes for co-operation with investigations.
Amendment 477A was tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton—it is good to see her in the Committee—Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon. Amendment 482 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. These amendments would expand the scope of the statutory oversight powers beyond compliance with the Bill, straying into areas of policy. The scope of the statutory powers provided by these clauses has been carefully drafted to maintain the boundary between law, which must be adhered to, and policy, where some leeway is allowed in terms of its implementation.
Expanding Clause 96 and/or the Section 97 recommendations to include social value, as well as considering how contracting authorities have chosen to meet obligations to have regard to policy and principles, would blur that boundary and start to erode the autonomy of contracting authorities, which we recognise are best placed to make policy implementation decisions that are appropriate for their business. It would also move the statutory regime away from objective and measurable concerns into more subjective areas of debate, which could impact the effectiveness of the oversight system. We believe that the scope of Clauses 96 to 98 creates a proportionate, effective and compelling incentive for improvement. It is worth noting, however, that the drafting of Clauses 96 and 97 does not prevent the Minister from making observations regarding a contracting authority’s policy implementation. Policy guidance can indeed continue to be provided to contracting authorities.
Non-statutory procurement policy notes, which we have discussed before, are currently released to guide contracting authorities. In the new regime, under Clause 98, statutory guidance, which may be published as a result of investigations, can also address matters of policy. Contracting authorities will be required to have regard to any guidance released under Clause 98; I think this helps to deal with the social value issue. The removal of Clause 97(3) would result in the appropriate authority having the power to intervene in specific procurements.
The restriction in Clause 97(3)(c) ensures probity of the procurement by, for example, preventing a Minister of the Crown from using Section 97 to exert influence over which supplier is awarded the contract. That is an important point. To remove this restriction would be concerning to contracting authorities and suppliers alike.
Finally in this group, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, tabled Amendment 486A. This seeks to stipulate that the expertise of SMEs, voluntary organisations and social enterprises is accessible to an appropriate authority that is conducting investigations under Clause 96. The PRU will be managed and delivered by a small, experienced team of civil servants based in the Cabinet Office, supported by a panel of experts, which can be consulted regarding investigations and any resultant Section 97 recommendations and guidance under Section 98. The Cabinet Office aspires to provide perspectives from procurement experts from across the Civil Service, local authorities and various types of private organisations, including SMEs and VCSEs, to benefit the oversight regime.
However, it should be recognised that having a panel which includes external procurement professionals is dependent on the availability of suitably qualified individuals and the ability to manage any potential conflicts of interest. I am therefore unwilling to make a legislative commitment of the kind proposed. However, the establishment of the panel will be transparent, and appropriate documentation will be published in due course, including on the process for appointing members. It seems to me that this is an important error, which is why I make that point.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Can the Minister clarify whether it is the Government’s intention that the PRU will be an appropriate authority, so that panel members themselves will have legal powers under Section 96? If not, I am really confused as to what legal powers the panel will have when it comes to calling for documents, and what duty will be on other contracting authorities to provide the panel with any information at all. At the moment, it does not look as if the panel is considered to be an appropriate authority, so it will not have any other legal powers under Part 10.
Lord Fox (LD)
Following on from that, if the Secretary of State can give and the Secretary of State can take away, and we have no sense that this panel will endure past the next government reshuffle—which could be any time now—without having it in either primary or secondary legislation, what status does this have at all other than the good will of the then Secretary of State?
I refer again to the Government’s response to the consultation: the role of the PRU was very specific. It was aimed to deliver the same service as the public procurement review service—and perhaps the Minister could tell us whether that is being disbanded and folded into the PRU; will it still exist or what? The response stated that
“the PRU’s main focus will be on addressing systemic or institutional breaches of the procurement regulations”.
The Minister has narrowed that down to debarments and compliance. It seems there really has been a declawing and a removing of this body from any statutory basis. As my noble friend points out, it is not very clear which the appropriate authority would be in those circumstances.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I might as well intervene now too, because the question I would really like to ask the Minister—and it is very nice to see her back in her place, as she was the Minister responsible for putting equal pay on the statute book, and I hope her progressive instincts there might be followed through in this piece of legislation—is about social value. How do we deliver social value if there is absolutely no way of examining it, monitoring it and enforcing where it is not being delivered?
Lord Scriven (LD)
Following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has said, and from what the Minister said about how this could not be in the Bill because it is a policy initiative, the procurement objective in Clause 11(1)(b) is “maximising public benefit”, which is a policy issue. All the noble Baroness is trying to do is ensure that social value is looked at by the appropriate authorities. Actually, it is more defined and specific in law, because there is a social value Act but no public benefit Act. The Minister’s answer that it is just a policy issue really does not stack up.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We do have a social value Act; I think the answer is—subject to correction—that social value features in the NPPS, the policy guidance note, and that failure to have regard to the NPPS is challengeable via judicial review rather than by suppliers for breach of statutory duty under Part 9 of the Bill. That is more appropriate as the NPPS will inform procurement strategy, and failure to comply should not result in suppliers being able to seek compensation from the public purse in respect of an individual procurement. There is quite a lot of complication in that area, but that is the approach. There is a social value Act, but obviously I will listen to what has been said today.
To return to the PRU, the unit will exercise powers on behalf of an appropriate authority. The panel will consult the PRU when appropriate and, if the Government set up a panel, as Governments often do—we have various panels in different departments that I have been involved with, and in my experience they tend to endure; certainly this one will be useful—the PRU will make recommendations to the Minister, who is the appropriate authority and will make the final decisions. That seems to be the right approach constitutionally.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful for that response. To be clear, will the panel be the investigating body?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
No. The PRU, a Civil Service unit, will be the investigating body, which will consist of experienced people of the right kind. The panel will advise that body.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful, but Clause 96 says the “appropriate authority may investigate”. The Minister has been referring in this short debate to “investigations” with regard to the panel. I am grateful that she has clarified that it will simply be an advisory group, not an investigatory group, and will not itself have the legal powers to seek documents. I am therefore not entirely sure what the PRU will do other than what existing civil servants do, which is to advise Ministers.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We have put together this whole new system of procurement, which includes various checks and balances. Panel members will be available for the procurement review unit to help regarding investigations and the unit’s work. Their reports and recommendations will help with moving forward on procurement and the complexities of this change of the law. Their advice can be published, and we will be able to reference the assistance that the panel has provided. That is the approach that we are proposing following a process of consultation. The PRU is central. I am sure we will revert to this issue.
Lord Fox (LD)
The Minister will have got the message that there is deep disquiet about how this will be structured and will operate. If the Minister has time, can she reflect on Hansard and write a letter before Report setting out how this unit will be set up and what its roles, on a statutory or non-statutory basis, will be? That would be very helpful.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Of course, I will write setting out how this will work. I ask the Committee to look at it constructively in the light of what we are trying to achieve across a very wide area of procurement. I go back to where we started in Committee, as this is probably the final amendment this evening, and say that there is also a process of cultural change, training and so on that will be going on, which is an important complement to the investigatory powers that we are looking at in this amendment.
I respectfully ask noble Lords not to move their amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(5) A voluntary standstill period may not be less than a period of eight working days beginning with the day on which the contract award notice is published.”
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Murray of Blidworth
Introduction: Lord Johnson of Lainston
Oaths and Affirmations
Death of a Member: Baroness Blood
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the retired Member, the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, on 21 October. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and friends.
Food: Imports and Security
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the current level of the pound on food imports and food security.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my interests as set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. The depreciation of the pound should not have a direct impact on household food security; however, it may have an indirect effect if increased import costs cause the price of food to rise. It is not for His Majesty’s Government to set retail food prices. Through regular engagement, Defra will continue to work with food retailers to explore the range of measures they can take to ensure the availability of affordable food.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Given the unprecedented food inflation we have seen—the highest level for 40 years—and the fact that farmers and consumers are facing unprecedented challenges, will my noble friend the Minister take this opportunity to boost farm productivity at home to stabilise food security and to boost self-sufficiency in food, which for fruit and vegetables is a woeful 16%? This is a one-off opportunity to help farmers and consumers with both their budgets and food productivity and growth.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, we enjoy a high degree of domestic food security and self-sufficiency but we are not complacent about it. We have responded to recent events, as in the food strategy, putting food security at the heart of the Government’s vision for the food sector. It is absolutely our intention to help farmers become much more productive in the two sectors that the noble Baroness mentioned, particularly in horticulture but also in areas such as seafood. Our farming reforms are designed to support farmers to produce food sustainably and productively alongside delivering environmental improvements, which of course we all benefit from.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister focus for a moment on the inexorable increase in the number of food banks being used by people who simply cannot afford to shop elsewhere? This is a real problem. Fortunately for the United Kingdom, people have so far been generous in supplying food banks, but even now we are reading and learning that some food banks are simply running out of food. This is a pretty serious state of affairs and I hope the Minister will assure the House that it is being looked at.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The people who run food banks are some of the best people in our society, and any of us who have had anything to do with them are in awe of the work they do. Household income is a complex issue across many different sectors, and the Government’s job is to support households, as we are through our £37 billion investment. This includes £500 million to help with the cost of household essentials, including food, and brings the total funding and support to £1.5 billion. We certainly work with the food bank sector to make sure that for any problems it faces, if the Government can influence it, we ease those problems and help it do the work that it does.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
One of the constraints on the production of home-produced fruit and vegetables has been the availability of labour. We have been receiving mixed messages from the Government on their attitude to seasonal workers. Can the Minister confirm what the current government policy is please?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We are firmly supportive of the Institute for Agriculture and Horticulture that the noble Lord has been so instrumental in setting up and running. We want to make sure that we are improving the skills available and that those skills reflect how young people want to go into an industry now. They want portable qualifications that they can take into different areas of farming, agricultural production or the food industry. Improving skills is an absolute priority. We will not get the improvements in areas such as horticulture unless we improve the skills base. That is why we are determined to see organisations such as TIAH succeed.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the poorest 20% of the population spend a higher proportion of their income on food. This makes them vulnerable to the effects of changing food prices. They are the very people who need to eat a good-quality, balanced diet to maintain their health. Will the Minister undertake to lobby his colleagues in other departments to ensure that they are aware of the health effects of insufficient food and nutrition and to ensure that both benefits and free school meals are extended to cover the gap in rising food prices?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that food inflation adversely affects those on the lowest incomes and she is right to raise the issue of healthy food for children. We have increased the value of our Healthy Start vouchers to £4.25 a week and spent around £600 million a year ensuring an additional 1.25 million infants enjoy a free, healthy and nutritious meal at lunchtime following the introduction of the universal infant free school meal policy of 2014. I am very happy to keep her and other noble Lords abreast of other conversations we have in the context of food and the work happening across government to help families deal with the cost of living crisis.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, could my noble friend assure us that, when he is helping to increase the productivity of farming in all its spheres, it will be done with the best science available, so that it will improve not only farming but nature at the same time?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We operate on the basis of the best scientific evidence. Sometimes the evidence presented to Ministers can be conflicting, and we have to make a value judgment. Scientific advice underpins our new farming systems, and there is a determination to produce food sustainably and reverse the catastrophic declines in species that we have experienced in recent decades—which, as the Dasgupta review pointed out, has an economic cost as well as a cost to our environment.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
I thank the Minister for his responses here, but, given the current value of the pound, which is making our exports so attractive, what are His Majesty’s Government doing to seize this opportunity to grow our exports of British produce and therefore support and really encourage our fantastic and hard-working farmers?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right: there are areas for growth in our farming productivity. We want to see what we can produce. We are more than self-sufficient in produce such as lamb and poultry, but we want the opportunity to export as well. There are huge opportunities in horticulture, which is why we are working really hard with that sector to improve the productivity of food production right across the piece, and to look at the export opportunities that quality foods can achieve.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the fact is that a small number of global food companies are making huge profits out of the current crisis, which is affecting not only consumers but farmers as well. Why do not the Government use the powers in the Environment Act to take action on supply chain regulation to make sure that everybody shares in the profits available there? Furthermore, why do not the Government take action to curb financial speculation in the food markets, because that is at the heart of the problem here?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am very happy to take up any specific cases where the noble Baroness feels that undue influence has been applied to the supply chain. We have complex supply chains in this country; she is quite right to state that some companies are based overseas. However, where we find problems we can take action, not just through the Environment Act but through the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which this Government also set up.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit report last week found that the combined impacts of climate change as well as oil and gas prices have driven up food prices by £11.4 billion—that is £407 per household. Obviously, that is much more serious for those on lower incomes. Of that £407, £170 is due to climate change and £236 is due to oil and gas prices. That really tells us, if we ever need reminding, how much the food system is dependent on fossil fuels. Can the Minister agree and support the transition now to agroecological food systems? Can he give us any reassurance that the new ELMS subsidy system will be back on track with the announcement of the new Prime Minister?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I think that it is back on track with the existing Prime Minister, or the one that is still there as we speak. I assure the noble Baroness that the very basis of ELMS is an agroecological understanding of our soil standard, getting proper functioning ecosystems to support the food that we produce—so I can absolutely give her that assurance.
Vehicles: Purchase Price and Running Costs
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the report by Fair Charge Driving Away from Fossil Fuels, published on 5 July, which found that if there were parity in purchase price and running cost, 100 per cent of drivers would choose electric rather than diesel or petrol cars, what steps they are taking to ensure that price parity is reached as soon as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, while the upfront purchase price for electric vehicles remains higher than for their petrol or diesel equivalents, in many cases these vehicles are cheaper to own and run. Generous tax incentives are in place, which, alongside fuel and maintenance savings, reduce the total cost of ownership.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Fair Charge report highlighted the discrepancies in VAT for private and public EV charging. As energy prices rise, the discrepancy becomes even greater in real terms. There is a realistic danger that EVs will be seen as too expensive, although the Government, of course, get a greater income from tax as energy prices have risen. I realise it is difficult for the Minister to know what government policy is likely to be later this week, but will she undertake urgently to press whoever happens to be running the Treasury to reduce VAT on public charge points to 5%, in order to encourage EV take-up among all sections of society?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am very happy to outline what government policy is. As the noble Baroness will know, and as is always the case when taxes are referred to, all taxes are kept under review. It should be stressed that the reduced VAT on domestic supply reduces bills for households by £5 billion a year. Most people do not charge their electric vehicles exclusively at public charge points. However, I accept that that discrepancy exists and, as I said, we keep taxes under review.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister believe that the UK strategy on battery production is still viable, particularly given the recent media reports related to Britishvolt and the decision to move the production of electric Minis to China from Oxford? Does that show a loss of confidence in the strategy?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not think it is a loss of confidence in the strategy. The Government’s intention is that the UK remains at the forefront of EV manufacture, innovation and batteries; that is why we have the Faraday fund and the automotive transformation fund. All these elements are really important, but I accept that some companies will come into the market, and some will leave. There will be some flux, but at the moment, we are not concerned.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, that sounds like a very laissez-faire attitude. What discussions have the Government had with BMW about this very unfortunate decision?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As far as I am aware, the Department for Transport has not had any discussions with BMW about this very unfortunate decision. However, I will inquire with colleagues in BEIS as to whether they have. But, as I say, there are always changes within any particular manufacturing sector. None of us wants the Mini to be produced in China and it may well be that other models come back to the UK.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an owner of an electric Mini and a diesel car. The electric Mini is one of the best cars I have ever had. It costs nothing to run because I charge it from sunlight from my solar panels. What on earth are the Government doing by allowing this icon of British industry to be changed and moved to China?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Of course, a lot of the design and innovation that went into the Mini did come from the UK, but the Government are clearly not going to get involved in some decisions by private companies as to where they do their manufacturing. However, we can provide support to companies to make sure that they do manufacture in the UK and that is why we have the automotive transformation fund.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister reassure the House that the end-life of EV batteries will not be landfill? Also, can she update the House on government support for research into the remanufacturing of EV batteries?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
It is really important that we understand what happens to batteries throughout their lives. It is the case though that there are 20 million EVs on the world’s roads already and there is no evidence to suggest that their lifespans are any different from those of a petrol or a diesel vehicle. We expect that many EV batteries will have a guarantee of about eight years, or 100,000 miles. As for the end of their lifespan, it is very important that we focus on recycling. Of course, the Government are focused on that, and I will write to the noble Baroness with more information.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is now not a good time for His Majesty’s Government to have a whole look? We have the strategy of 2030 ahead of us, when petrol cars are supposed to disappear, but at this point in time we have a situation where electric cars are hugely expensive; they are not available at a competitive price for ordinary families. Ordinary families living in tower blocks in my former constituency cannot recharge those cars, so is it not time that we had a look at the whole strategy openly and took a little time about it to ensure that we have a policy that is workable in the future, taking into consideration the point added by my noble friend on the Bench below?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The price of electric vehicles has fallen dramatically over recent years, and that was helped by the Government providing quite significant grants in the early years to ensure that the prices were lower. There are now 24 models that cost less than £32,000 new—
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
If I may finish—because I too would not buy a new car for £32,000—the second-hand market, in my view, is the key to getting widescale acceptance from, and affordable vehicles to, the consuming public. The second-hand market is getting stronger. The biggest suppliers to it are the fleets, and we are working with them to ensure that their models get to the second-hand market.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the transition to electric vehicles is vital to the survival of our society as we know it; the impact of climate change is even worse in many other countries. The report sets out some sensible recommendations to help on the way. Which, if any, of the three or two-plus-two recommendations does the Minister reject, and why?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am afraid that I am not familiar with the recommendations in the report.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, do the Government have a strategy to deal with financial incentives being given by the Chinese Government to entice British firms to move to China, and if so, what is it?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I will have to refer to the relevant department, but it is of course the case that the UK Government also provide support to various companies to invest in the UK and to create jobs here. All countries will have their own strategies, but I will write to the noble Baroness with more information.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Will my noble friend agree to speak to her colleagues at Defra about the huge shortage of electric charging points on our inland waterways? There is a disproportionate amount of diesel and petrol boats, particularly on the Thames, which are heavily polluting—I declare an interest as an owner of an electric boat—but the reason that there are not more electric boats is simply the paucity of charging stations.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend raises a very important point. The Government are very focused on the decarbonisation of the maritime sector, whether that be inland or on sea, so I will certainly speak to Defra, but I will also write to my noble friend, because I think that there is more that I can say on inland waterways.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, is it not even more important to get people to stop using their cars as much as possible, whether they are electric, diesel or petrol, and go on the train? Is not that even more difficult, as I found this morning, when the 8.30 am and the 9.30 am trains from Edinburgh were cancelled because there were no staff available? The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, are stuck on a train. They were turfed off at Preston and had to catch another train. That is not reliable. What is the Minister doing to get reliability in our long-distance trains?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord. There are some circumstances on our trains where the service is not very good at all. We are working very closely with some of those providers that are not providing the level of service that we want, because the Government’s goal is to provide choice. If people want to be able to use the trains, we have to have trains that actually work. We are very focused on that, and I am sure that the noble Lord will have seen comments from the Secretary of State for Transport regarding how we feel about the services being offered.
Police National Computer
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what procurement criteria they used in awarding Fujitsu a £48 million contract to upgrade the Police National Computer; and whether their decision to award that contract took into account that company’s role in developing the Horizon software for the Post Office.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, every contract award is considered on its own merit and in line with procurement regulations and evidence of historic supply and delivery. The police national computer is a critical service used by UK policing and other agencies to maintain public safety and security. The contract to replace PNC mainframe hardware technology, ensuring the future of the service, was awarded following market engagement on grounds of time, cost and risk to continuity of service.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Government have awarded contracts to Fujitsu of over £3.5 billion since 2013, including nearly £500 million this year, of which £48 million was on the police national computer. Considering that Fujitsu’s Horizon software was at the heart of the Post Office sub-postmaster scandal, why do the Government believe that Fujitsu software has the necessary integrity for the critical data in the PNC? How is a business-as-usual approach on the award of contracts before the official Post Office inquiry concludes prudent? Lastly, how does this government largesse give Fujitsu any incentive to contribute to the massive compensation cost for sub-postmasters, which is set to fall on the taxpayer?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. The police national computer has been hosted on Fujitsu mainframe technology for over 30 years, and existing Fujitsu-leased hardware technology would not have been viable to use beyond March 2022. It required urgent replacement, which is why Fujitsu was selected. The market engagement exercise held in 2020 to review options to replace the Fujitsu hardware and support found no viable alternative solutions, and that is why Fujitsu received this contract—which, I should also stress, is making up the difference between now and when the new police national computer comes into operation. I could go on, but there was basically no alternative.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has given us a very interesting answer. Basically, he said that it came as a big shock to the Home Office that this equipment had expired. Can he tell us what confidence he has in the Home Office’s management of IT contracts of various sizes—bearing in mind, for example, the grotesque overspending on the replacement of the Airwave system for emergency services communication, and the fact that that contract has overrun by five or six years already, with no sign that the costs are going to be met?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid that that is not what I said to the noble Baroness or to the House at all. I have confidence that Fujitsu will deliver on this.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests, and I support the noble Lord, Lord Harris. The emergency services network is technology rather than IT. Not only is it five years delayed, but I think the costs have risen by five times, from around £2 billion to over £10 billion. As yet, I am afraid that the Government are trapped in a terrible contract with Motorola, which is delivering a legacy solution but is also charged with delivering the new one. Unfortunately, it is being paid £250 million more for the old system per year, so there is no great incentive. It is a great worry, not only for the Government but for the police, that this system is not yet delivered.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, and I commend him for his work on this and other matters. Obviously, I am here more to talk about the subject of the Question, but I will take his concerns back, find out more information and write to him.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, to return to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about Horizon, the words that come to my mind are: “scandalous”, “miscarriage of justice”, “broken lives”, “families financially ruined”—and yet Fujitsu has paid nothing. Talking has gone on long enough. I know there are legal cases, but should not the Government stop any contracts to Fujitsu? It is just morally wrong.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend is right to point out that we are trying to get to the bottom of the Horizon issue. That is why Sir Wyn Williams has been tasked to hold his statutory inquiry. Fujitsu is a core participant and is co-operating fully. Accountability depends on evidence, so I think it is proper to let Sir Wyn hear it before judging any possible consequences.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, was any consideration given by the Government to the public perception of awarding such a vital contract to a company with such a shocking record? Can the Minister confirm clearly whether Fujitsu was the only company that actually bid for this contract? If that is the case, how can we be assured of a genuinely competitive process? How will this improve standards? How do we get good value for money and end up with results which, when you consider the role of this company, is truly shocking? I endorse all the words of the noble Lord, Lord Polak: it is appalling that this company can get anywhere near another government contract.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I said earlier in answer to another question, it was the only viable alternative. Other companies were invited in and, for reasons most of which were around the time it would take to implement new systems, Fujitsu offered the only solution. Of course, I agree with the public perception argument; however, I do not think we had any alternative.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, given that the flaws in Horizon software by Fujitsu were the cause of an awful lot of distress and misspent money, are the Government confident that so far there have been no similar mistakes on the police national computer?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The Government are confident. There has been one incident of data loss, but it was a human error, as opposed to a software error and all that data has been recovered. So, yes, the Government are confident.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Horizon scandal involved 736 innocent sub-postmasters being prosecuted; four suicides; many more individuals and families torn apart by the prolonged cover-up of technical problems; and a cost to taxpayers of more than £1 billion so far. I know this Government’s reputation for financial probity is at a very low ebb, but can the Minister explain how Fujitsu was able to land this complex and sensitive contract when the Government had removed it from the list of preferred suppliers in the last year?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I have to say again that I think I have answered most of the noble Baroness’s question already. Fujitsu is not a preferred supplier, but it is able to enter open competitions for government business. Fujitsu has not been found guilty of any fraud or other crime related to Horizon and is complying with all inquiries. There was no viable alternative.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful that my noble friend accepts the public perception point, because more taxpayers’ money is going into this company at the moment. Inquiries take a long time, but in relation to other inquiries, such as contaminated blood, there has been a process to expedite payments and, as the noble Baroness has outlined, some people have taken their own lives. Surely, we should expedite the public funds that need to be in the pockets of those people harmed by Post Office and potentially Fujitsu.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with my noble friend. So far, to date, the Government and Post Office have made good progress on delivering compensation to postmasters through the scheme fairly and quickly—82% of eligible claimants have now received an offer, and £52 million has been offered in total. I accept that it is not enough, but it is being done.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have presided over the economy and vital sensitive infrastructure, including tech infrastructure, for 12 years. If, as the Minister suggests, there was no viable alternative, why not?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Unfortunately, as I said, this relates to the delay in the rollout of the new system. The new system was delayed because of unforeseen complexity. I should state for the record that statistics around the police national computer are mind-boggling in their complexity: 30 million people’s information; 68 million vehicle records; 61 million driving licence holder records; 1.34 million daily transactions; 114 million checks per annum. It has to work; therefore, there was no viable alternative.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, could the Minister tell the House whether external consultants were involved in deciding that this contract should go to Fujitsu and, if so, how much were they paid for coming to the rather defeatist conclusion that there was no alternative?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The process was subject to all the usual Cabinet Office rules. I do not know how much external consultants were paid; I will find out.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm—I think he has been trying to tell us—that Fujitsu has an unassailable monopoly on this contract?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
No, it does not have an unassailable monopoly. It obviously has a long history with the police national computer. When the police national computer finally breathes its last, its monopoly effectively does the same.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
Will the noble Lord agree that over the last century pretty well every government contract that has been put out becomes a monopoly? Is it not time that we had a new approach to how such contracts are handed out?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
That sounds like a very sensible suggestion, and I will take it back to the department. I have not necessarily been around for as long as the noble Lord described.
Regency Act 1937
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to amend the Regency Act 1937.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Regency Act sets out the arrangements by which a regency is triggered, as well as provisions for the appointment of Counsellors of State. On occasion, the Regency Act 1937 has been amended so that its provisions effectively support the sovereign in the discharge of their duties and ensure the resilience of our constitutional arrangements. The Government will continue to consider their legislative programme for the remainder of the Session.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for that reply. The House knows that the Regency Act is still very relevant: it is the only reason why it was possible to open the current Session of this Parliament. Indeed, when you look at the final year of Her late Majesty’s reign, there were elements of a regency about it. Does the Minister not think it time to approach the King to discuss the potential amendment of this Act, and in particular Clause 6, which at the moment defines regents in relation to their line of succession to the Crown? Otherwise, are the Government happy to continue with a situation where the counsels of state and regency powers may be exercised by the Duke of York or the Duke of Sussex, one of whom has left public life and the other of whom has left the country? Is it not time for the Government to approach the King to see whether a sensible amendment can be made to this Act?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for the Question but he will of course understand that I will not discuss any private conversations with His Majesty or with the Royal Household. His Majesty King George VI set out in his gracious message to Parliament that there can be a need
“to consider contingencies which may hereafter arise, and to make such provision as will, in any event, secure the exercise of the Royal Authority.”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/37; col. 766.]
In that spirit, the Government will always consider what arrangements are needed to ensure resilience in our constitutional arrangements, and in the past we have seen that the point of accession has proved a useful opportunity to consider the arrangements in place.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, can the Government indicate that they will at least consider that the person they go to in the first consideration will be somebody who actually undertakes royal duties, or at least some part of them, at present?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, again, I will not comment on specific circumstances. I have set out the position in response to the noble Viscount, and, obviously, any consideration would also have to take place in close consultation with the Royal Household.
Hereditary Peers By-election
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the House for allowing me to make a few remarks after this latest clutch of by-elections; I remind the House that five new Members of Parliament have been elected since last Thursday with scarce a murmur from anywhere. I want to put into Hansard and on the record a little more information about the by-election that was held last week for the new Cross-Bench Peer.
I find the way in which these results are announced completely unsatisfactory. Obviously, that is not a criticism of the clerk—it is precedent—but we have notice of new Members of Parliament only by means of a very lightly drawn, barely noticeable script on the Order Paper. The only information we get, apart from the recent embellishment, which tells us the total number of votes cast, just tells us who has won the election. More information should be provided when the result is announced. I am unable to give it for the result that has just been announced because I would have to go along to the Printed Paper Office to get it, but I can give some information about the by-election for the new Cross-Bencher which was held last week. There were 10 candidates for that vacancy and 30 electors, so, three electors for every candidate. Twenty-two of the 30 voted; I make that a turnout of 73%. The winning candidate got 11 votes and the runner-up got 10 votes, so a quick calculation tells me that that is a majority of one, which of course makes this a hyper-marginal seat.
I simply say to the House that a by-election result has been announced without the figures and without even the winning candidates being present, let alone the losing candidates—usually, the losing candidates stick around as well for a normal by-election. With no criticism of the people elected whatever, it is without any reference to the House of Lords Commission, unlike any life Peer or Cross-Bencher appointed to this House. There really is need for more information to be presented to the House when the clerk reads out the result. I commend that to the House authorities and to the Leader, who is in his place and who I know takes these things very seriously.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, before the Minister responds, I wonder whether there may be an opportunity for he and I to discuss this through the usual channels. Not only do we have hereditary Peers by-elections, against which this House has voted in principle—with no disrespect to those candidates who come into the House, whom we welcome—numerous times. We also have additional Members coming to the House as Ministers—about 10 in the past couple of years—and now there are reports of a further prime ministerial resignation honours list from the Prime Minister, who has been in post for only about a month. It seems that we ought to have a little more thought about the membership of this House and, as the Burns report says, not having a House of quite the size it is, but one that allows us to do our best work in the best way. It would be helpful if we could discuss in a sensible, practical and respectful way ensuring that this House is of a size that enables us to do our job in the best way possible.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness talks about the size of the House, and I noticed the difficulty of finding a place on your Lordships’ Benches today. On the usual channels, I prefer to have such discussions in private, rather than on the Floor of the House. As far as new Peers are concerned, I simply say that I look forward to welcoming the eight new Labour peers who were appointed on the recommendation of the leader of the Opposition.
Business of the House
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal
That, in the event of the Supply and Appropriation (Adjustments) Bill having been brought from the House of Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 25 October to allow the Bill to be taken through all remaining stages that day.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
I apologise, my Lords: I was not expecting to have to intervene on the previous matter, but, without prejudice to what we say in private, I heard what the noble Baroness said. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Sanctions (Damages Cap) Regulations 2022
Lord Harlech
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 20 July be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 October.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Armed Forces (Covenant) Regulations 2022
Lord Harlech
That the draft Regulations and Rules laid before the House on 20 July be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 October.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Baroness Goldie, I beg to move the Motions standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Energy Prices Bill
Monday 24th October 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Energy Prices Act 2022 View all Energy Prices Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 59-I(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (21 Oct 2022)
17:21 - Division on Amendment 8 - Ayes: 170 / Noes: 174 - Amendment 8 disagreed.
17:49 - Division on Amendment 14 - Ayes: 153 / Noes: 174 - Amendment 14 disagreed.
18:04 - Division on Amendment 25 - Ayes: 154 / Noes: 166 - Amendment 25 disagreed.
Lord Lennie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Lennie make the regulations in the relevant sections subject to the affirmative procedure.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments is all about making various clauses subject to the affirmative procedure in your Lordships’ House. I give notice that we intend to divide the House on Amendment 25.
The amendments affect Clauses 2, 3, 6, 7 and 16, and Schedules 1 and 2, making them subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government seek to justify some of the use of the negative procedure by pointing out that the Secretary of State already has the power to modify or revoke the schemes in Clauses 2 and 3, and Clauses 6 and 7 for Northern Ireland.
Clause 16, which confers powers to make it a temporary requirement on electricity generators to make payment regulations, uses the affirmative procedure on first use and the negative procedure thereafter. The Government’s justification for a temporary requirement represents a significant intervention in the electricity market. This clause will define the main parameters of the scheme. After this, the Government believe that interest will wane, with only minor or technical amendments likely to occur, therefore justifying the negative procedure thereafter.
The justification for the Schedule 1 powers is that, although the Government recognise that the powers are significant, they are necessary to allow the schemes for relief of GB businesses. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report, established in haste last week, says that by including paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 the Government have completely ignored the recommendation contained in its report:
“No attempt has been made to limit the powers or to ensure that they will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.”
Nor was any “compelling justification” offered to support the Government taking these powers. Schedule 2 powers relate to Northern Ireland, where a similar provision is proposed.
In Clauses 21 and 22, the subject of Amendment 25, the Government assert that their approach would include a fuller period of consultation with relevant stakeholders providing suppliers with earlier certainty. However, what guarantee is there that these steps will ever be taken? The department also considers that any delay could have negative consequences for those who were to benefit from the scheme. However, there are enough examples of regulations being scrutinised after the fact—for instance, those relating to Covid—and even after this primary legislation, which, as it stands, took effect from 1 October 2022. I cannot see why this cannot be applied here.
The pace of things is another justification offered by the Government. The affirmative procedure would not allow certainty that the licence modifications would follow and this in turn would inhibit suppliers making required operational changes, slowing delivery this winter.
There does not seem much justification for the Secretary of State taking these overwhelming powers. Clause 22 applies similar powers to Northern Ireland, also without the same compelling justification. It allows the Secretary of State to tackle barriers to delivering implementation of the schemes as necessary. There appears no justification for this at all. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is firmly of the view that any power conferred by Clause 22 is inappropriate and that the Government should act by,
“imposing a time limit on the exercise of the power which is commensurate with other time limits contained within the Bill.”
I beg to move.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to some of the amendments in my name in this group. This is the only time I shall intervene. Although I have tabled amendments in the second and fourth groups, I do not propose to speak to them. What I am about to say covers the same points.
I declare an interest as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I do not speak for the committee; the report does that. Over the weekend, I read the Government’s inadequate response to the report. I am grateful for the speed with which the Government responded, as I suspect other committee members are. That was useful but their response was completely inadequate. It is significant that the government response makes no mention at all of the Delegated Powers Committee’s report from November 2021, Democracy Denied? The Urgent Need to Rebalance Power between Parliament and the Executive.
Clause 22(5), which is not referred to in the government response, is the subject of Amendment 28. According to paragraph 14 of the Delegated Powers Committee’s report, Clause 22(5) is, in effect,
“a Henry VIII power because it allows the effect of legislation, including primary legislation, to be modified by a direction.”
Paragraph 14 also says:
“There are no limits on the kinds of requirements which may be imposed through the directions power.”
Paragraphs 14 to 18 say firmly that the powers in Clause 22 are inappropriate. Clause 22 brings in what is referred to as “disguised law”. This was referred to in the November 2021 report as “camouflaged legislation” and an “unacceptable ploy”.
The Delegated Powers Committee report on this Bill refers to the memorandum supplied with the Bill, particularly paragraphs 154 to 162. Referring to the government memo, the report says that it
“does not explain the full range of the things which can be done”.
It goes on to say, in paragraph 16:
“We are also not convinced by the reasons given in the Memorandum for the power not being subject to parliamentary scrutiny.”
As such, the Delegated Powers Committee report says that the Government appear
“to have completed ignored the recommendations”
in the committee’s report of November 2021.
I want to make a more general point, which I shall not repeat on the other group of amendments. I was not a member of the Delegated Powers Committee when its November 2021 report, Democracy Denied?, was published, in tandem and in co-operation with a report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House, entitled Government by Diktat: A Call to Return Power to Parliament. Both reports—that from the Delegated Powers Committee and that from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—were about Parliament and the Executive. They were not about this House and the elected House of Commons. Parliament and the Executive are what this is about.
Both reports were debated in this House on 6 January under a Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish of Little Venice. I have no criticism of the Minister or his team for reasons I shall make clear. I do not expect he has read either report; I am not sure any Minister has. I do not hold the Minister responsible. He and his government colleagues are taking advantage of the slack role Parliament has played to bequeath powers from Parliament to the Executive.
On Wednesday 20 July this year—a significant date because it was the day before the Summer Recess started—both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, including Peers who had been members of those committees last year when the reports were prepared, took evidence on the reports from the then Leaders of both Houses and First Parliamentary Counsel. There was no sign that anybody had read anything about the 6 January debate on both of them. It was abundantly clear that neither of the then Leaders had even been briefed on the views of this House.
Parliamentary counsel have clearly continued to draft Bills, such as this Bill, which have “completely ignored” the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report, Democracy Denied? Why have they done this? Repeatedly, parliamentary counsel are producing Bills which transfer powers from Parliament to the Executive. It is parliamentary counsel doing this—they draft the Bills.
During the exchanges on 20 July in respect of what is referred to as Question 16, I asked the First Parliamentary Counsel, Dame Elizabeth Gardiner, about her saying during our evidence that day that counsel
“have that discussion on a daily basis with the teams and with the Ministers about the nature of what they are asking for”.
I pointed out that, in my time as a Minister, in both Houses, over 12 years—it is in the minutes—
“I understood … that parliamentary counsel took instructions from the department’s lawyers and Ministers never got involved with parliamentary counsel.”
Dame Elizabeth’s answer was:
“I think things have changed a lot ... Probably we do meet policy officials and Ministers more frequently on Bills than we would have done 30 years ago”.
I have checked on this. I think this change, or breach of convention, has happened in the past 12 years. My experience, particularly in two departments, as I recall, when I served in this House—there were four altogether, but two in particular—was that it was specifically said to me when I joined, because Bills came up, that in general the Government accepted most of the recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It was the norm to accept the majority. I was repeatedly told that. I think this change, or breach of convention—it is certainly a lapse in the accepted standards of conduct—has happened only since 2010, when somebody started playing wild with parliamentary procedures, and the House of Commons was blindsided by it. That, I think, is very dangerous.
I am prepared to say that I think the old way was best. If lawyers gave instructions for policy officials so that the policy officials would have to say to department’s lawyers, “This is what we want to do, and what our Ministers want to do”, the lawyers would then use the legal structures to put that case to parliamentary counsel. By and large, the system worked. I think it would be far less likely that clear recommendations made by Parliament would be “completely ignored” if the lawyers were the ones who gave the instructions to parliamentary counsel, as was the case up until 2010.
I trust the lawyers here to follow the conventions. Quite clearly, parliamentary counsel work with the Government—let us make no bones about it. These days, they do not even have their own office block in Whitehall, to which I was once invited to when I was a Minister in the other place. I know the way they work; they are now ensconced inside the Treasury. They work for the Government; they are not independent.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading. I did listen to the Minister’s opening speech and I had made my views clear in an earlier briefing. My views sync very closely with those of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Quite honestly, this Government are out of control—we have known that for months, if not years—and it is time they understood they are not acting in a democratic manner. This is a “something must be done” Bill, and I understand why something must be done. However, it has so little detail, and the Government are expecting us to take this on trust. I do not trust the Government, and so there is a big problem here for me.
There are two big issues. First, these energy price schemes will make the difference between people being able to pay their bills or not pay their bills, and whether they can feed themselves, clothe their kids and that sort of thing. We have to be sure of all this detail. The Government are proposing to fill in about 90% of the Bill’s details at a later date, and they expect us to just wave it through. We cannot know the impact of this Bill on ordinary people.
Secondly, the Government have been determined to protect the profits of oil and gas companies, which we all know is a piece of idiocy when we look at the climate emergency. That profit will probably be reinvested in creating more opportunities for the oil and gas industry. The Government take a different approach to renewables, and this will cause a long-term disruption to renewable development. I would argue that investors will be encouraged to invest more in dirty oil and gas, rather than in clean renewables. That is a huge bailout for all those stranded carbon assets, and seems to me to be a completely illogical way to move forward.
I sense that the Government might mean well—actually, I am being too generous. I understand that something must be done, but this is not it. I want the Minister to explain those two issues. Will people be able to pay their bills? Will this cause more investment in dirty oil and gas?
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 27, 31, 34 and 40. What I have to say is very much in line with the speeches that have already taken place and I will not detain the House for long, except to make this point again. We understand the urgency of the Bill, for the health of households and their heat and energy over the next winter, and that of businesses as well, but there is a lot else included in this Bill that need not be rushed through in the same way.
I turn to Amendment 27. On reading the Bill, I was quite shocked—the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, forensically went through this in principle—that it says on page 21, in Clause 22 (4)(a), that these directions “must be in writing”. These are key bits of government policy, where a Secretary of State or a person who is subject to directions under this clause—we do not even know who it might be—is able to just write what should happen. Our own amendment would substitute that with
“made by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure”.
Amendments 31 and 34, with Amendment 34 relating to Northern Ireland—it is great to see the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, here following his contribution during the Second Reading—would remove the powers of sub-delegation.
Amendment 40 is around the sunset clause, which again the Opposition has, quite rightly, majored on. Here, we have put down a two-year limit.
Clearly, the Bill goes way beyond the authority given to the Government and the Secretary of State, without reference to Parliament. Some of these amendments must be voted on for the Bill to be put right and sent back to the House of Commons.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by expressing my wholehearted support for the speech given by my noble friend Lord Rooker. He has so comprehensively discussed these issues that it is barely necessary for me to support him, but I intend to do so wholeheartedly, as I have said.
Perhaps I had better say that I was previously a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and I am now a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, as indeed is my noble friend Lord Rooker, as he said. I participated in the discussions of the two reports that he referred to: Democracy Denied and Government by Diktat. It is amazing how little response there has been from Ministers to those fundamentally important reports; fundamental in relation to this House and the other place, and in relation to the control—I use the word “control” advisedly—of ministerial actions and decisions.
The latest report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—the 14th report of this Session—on the Energy Prices Bill, says in paragraph 10:
“We are disappointed that, by including paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1, the Government appear to have completely ignored the recommendations contained in our report.”
That is true: the Government have completely ignored the recommendations made in the committee’s report. Paragraph 10 continues:
“No attempt has been made to limit the powers or to ensure that they will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.”
There is no provision for that under the Government’s proposals—no provision for parliamentary scrutiny of any kind. Paragraph 10 goes on:
“Nor do we consider that anything close to a compelling justification has been offered for these powers”,
and their inclusion in what the Government intend to pursue.
Paragraph 11 of the report says:
“Accordingly, we consider that the legislative sub-delegation provided by paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 is inappropriate. We also take the view that the power to give directions is inappropriate to the extent that paragraph 3(2) enables general directions to be given which would have legislative effect.”
This is Ministers giving themselves powers to give general directions that would have legislative effect. In my long experience—35 years in the other place, and a long time in this House—I have never seen proposals like this, ever, from any Government. That is the reality of it. I quote from paragraph 12 of the report:
“Accordingly, for the same reasons we consider that powers conferred by paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 2 are inappropriate.”
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is chaired by a person who sits on the Government Benches—a privy counsellor and former Cabinet Minister in the other place. There is no doubt that he is a good chair of the committee. He, along with other Conservative committee members, has signed up to this report, which is a damning indictment of what the Government are doing. It is time for this House and the other place to call a halt.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who spoke on this group. I understand many of the points that they made.
Let me first respond to the interesting points the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made. I honestly do not think there has been any radical change from when he was a Minister. When he was speaking, I was racking my brains trying to remember. I have been responsible for bringing a lot of Bills to this House, taking them through, developing them in three different departments, and I honestly cannot remember ever having a direct meeting with OPC to give it the so-called instructions the noble Lord referred to. Clearly in PBL meetings, which he will be familiar with, they attend and report to PBL. However, I suspect my experience has been very similar to his experience as a Minister, in that Ministers are involved in discussing policy intent with the department, officials and department lawyers. The instructions to parliamentary counsel are given by department lawyers, obviously acting on ministerial direction and steers about what we want to achieve through certain policies. I can only speak for myself, but I think the noble Lord is saying “a conspiracy too far” here. I genuinely do not think things have changed rapidly since his time.
I will respond briefly to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who posed me two questions. She asked, “Will this Bill will help people with their bills?” Absolutely, that is the whole purpose of it. It is to provide a subsidy to people for their bills, albeit indirectly via the suppliers, because otherwise they would be incredibly high, as the noble Baroness knows. Secondly, let me address her further conspiracy theories about this somehow being a hidden subsidy to the oil and gas companies. The noble Baroness is completely wrong. The oil and gas companies are not in scope of this Bill at all and there are no subsidies involved.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am so sorry to interrupt, but I would like the Minister to withdraw the word “conspiracy”. I have legitimate and reasonable fears. It is not a conspiracy; it is actual fact.
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is not a fact. The noble Baroness is absolutely wrong. Anyway, I am happy to take her reassurance on that. She was posing the question and I am giving her a direct answer. There are no subsidies involved for oil and gas companies in this Bill. They are not even in scope of the Bill. To answer her question directly, it is about direct support for people to help them with their electricity and gas bills.
Group 1 speaks to delegated powers in the Bill, including procedure, sun-setting use and scrutiny. I thank all those who spoke, those who tabled their thoughtful, well-intentioned amendments and the noble Lords, Lord Cunningham and Lord Rooker, who spoke on them. I also pay tribute, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, did, to the work of the DPRRC for its report on the Bill published last week. I have carefully considered and responded to it.
The first set of amendments would make certain regulations in the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure. I will go through all of them in turn. Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 relate to the energy price guarantee schemes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Committee will be aware that the schemes have been operational from the first of this month. I am happy to tell the Committee that the regulations in the Bill to designate the schemes will be extremely brief and will simply identify scheme documents. They will therefore be technical in nature and I deem them perfectly appropriate to be subject to the negative procedure.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Could the Minister give us an example of the circumstances under which the powers in this clause to amend licences would be made by a legislative Act that is not a regulation and would take the form of him just writing down, “Do it”? What circumstances would make this necessary? I find the arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Cunningham, rather compelling. The wording of subsection (5) is astonishingly wide.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I accept what the noble Lord says about it being astonishingly wide but, if he will have a little patience, I will quote some examples to him shortly, and he will see that they are not the biggest items that he can think of.
The powers in Clauses 21 and 22 have been included in the Bill to provide government with the ability to react at pace to unforeseen delivery barriers. Making them subject to the affirmative procedure could delay the provision of support to consumers this winter and put at risk the point when energy suppliers have certainty over the final delivery requirements.
The approach that the Bill takes to parliamentary procedure is not unprecedented: for example, a direction under the Electricity Act 1989 has already been used to deliver the energy bills support scheme in Britain. Furthermore, the powers in Clauses 21 and 22 may be used only “in response to” the current energy crisis,
“or in connection with the Act”
or with regulations or schemes made under it. They are therefore time-constrained in that respect. Amendment 39 would reduce the sunsetting provision for powers under the cost plus revenue limit from five years to three and a half years. We consider the five-year sunset appropriate for the Government to respond to the immediate effects of the energy crisis, while ensuring ongoing protection for consumers if gas prices remain abnormally high for a prolonged period. The upcoming consultation will allow the Government to further define the intended use of this power.
Amendments 40, 41 and 42 seek to sunset the powers under Clauses 21 and 22 to two years, with an extension permissible by affirmative regulations. The Bill already makes clear that Clauses 21 and 22 must be used only “in response to” the current energy crisis, or “in connection with” the Bill or with regulations or schemes made under it. Generally, those other provisions in the Bill are already subject to sunsetting. A crisis is, by its nature, something extraordinary and temporary. I submit that the circumstances and timing in which the Government can use this power are therefore already appropriately constrained by the Bill.
Three amendments have also been tabled that relate to requirements to consult. Amendment 19
“would require the Secretary of State to consult before utilising … powers”
on the temporary cost plus revenue limit. It is the Government’s clear commitment to consult as soon as possible; therefore, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.
Amendment 21 would require the Secretary of State to consult on pass-through requirements on intermediaries. As the schemes are being stood up at pace, this requirement could delay much-needed support being passed through to consumers this winter, and therefore could be positively harmful.
Amendment 23 would require modifications to licences under Clause 21 to be subject to consultation with the relevant bodies. As I mentioned, this clause ensures the Government’s ability to react at pace to unforeseen barriers to delivering the schemes. A requirement to consult would, again, simply delay our ability to deliver the schemes effectively and quickly, and therefore would be counterproductive.
Finally, a set of amendments have also been tabled which would remove certain powers from the Bill, including the opposition of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to Clause 22 standing part of the Bill. Clause 22 and its powers enable the Government to issue directions to energy licence holders and the Northern Ireland regulator in connection with schemes under the Bill and in response to the energy crises. The ability to issue directions of a general character is necessary to deliver support under the Bill and to tackle barriers to their implementation. Amendment 26 would limit the Secretary of State’s powers to issue directions of a “general character” to those only of a “specific” character. Amendment 28 would remove Clause 22, which provides that, when a direction to a person conflicts with existing requirements in an “enactment or instrument”, such requirements should be “disregarded”. Currently, we envision limited circumstances in which these circumstances will arise.
I will now give the example asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr: the Government may need to issue a direction to the Utility Regulator in Northern Ireland to ensure that the timing of electricity regulated tariff reviews is aligned with similar reviews in Great Britain. This may be necessary to ensure effective administration of the energy price guarantee in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In doing so, it may be necessary to rely on Clause 22 to resolve any potential conflict between the terms of the direction and the statutory requirements of independence applying to the energy regulators in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and any existing requirements as to timing in the supplier’s licences, to enable all parties to comply with the direction for tariff review alignment. Without this, licence holders or the Northern Ireland regulator may be uncertain about their legal position, and this could have the effect of households and businesses missing out on appropriate and timely support. This plays to the noble Lord’s points. I realise that there is a suspicion that there is some malign intent behind these clauses, but they are, essentially, designed to deliver support at pace in a fast-moving environment and to provide the Secretary of the State with the powers to ensure that this happens in a legally correct manner. I reassure the noble Lord that there is no hidden agenda here.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I plead innocent to any imputation of malign intent, but it is an astonishingly wide power. The Minister’s explanation related it solely to Northern Ireland. It is not limited as the Bill is drafted to Northern Ireland, but it would be relatively easy by combining subsections (3) and (5) so to limit it. That would cause me to worry much less about this apparently extraordinarily wide-ranging power to overrule the law of the land or all existing regulation without making a new regulation.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord asked me for an example. I have provided him with an example of one means that we envisage may be necessary. There could be other licensed modifications that we have not envisaged yet. As I said, this legislation has been drawn up at pace, using the excellent resources of lawyers and parliamentary counsel. It has been enacted very quickly. This is a clause that we think is necessary in order to, if you like, cover something that we have not thought of and that we have missed out in the Bill, but it is limited to use in the specific circumstances that the Bill requires.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Just for the record, Amendment 28 refers to subsection (5). Does the Minister think, and is it his advice, that subsection (5) is a Henry VIII clause or not?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is a power to give directions. Whether it qualifies as a Henry VIII power, I suppose depends on your definition of a Henry VIII power. Perhaps I may consult the lawyers and give the noble Lord a more detailed answer.
Additionally, there may be other circumstances—as I just said to the noble Lord—not yet known in which Clause 22(5) will be necessary to enable directions and the schemes that they are giving effect to to be implemented effectively with legal certainty and without undue delay. As I said, it is not unprecedented. A similar measure was included in the 1989 electricity regulations which we have just used to help implement this provision, and there has not been widespread abuse by a number of Secretaries of State from both parties who have been in office with that existing power since then. I understand noble Lords’ concerns, but history demonstrates that this is not unprecedented and noble Lords’ concerns are unwarranted.
Regarding Amendments 31 to 35, it is not uncommon for highly technical schemes to use tertiary legislation to provide for the detail of schemes, or for secondary legislation to enable directions to be made or provide that functions may be exercisable by persons named within them. These powers are crucial so that payments can be made for the energy bill relief scheme as quickly as possible—as I said, we are acting at pace, and I am grateful for the support of noble Lords to get this legislation through at pace—and to enable us to make any necessary changes to the technical nature and detail of the scheme as it becomes operational.
It is always the Government’s intention that delegated powers are appropriately limited and justified. Many powers in this Bill are already subject to the affirmative procedure and are expressly time limited. Other powers are subject to the requirement to use them in relation to the energy crises or in connection with other time-limited provisions in the Bill.
I return to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I am told that it is not a Henry VIII power, but it has the same effect.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I knew it was a mistake to ask the lawyers for an answer, but there we go. Whenever I do these Bills, I always understand why I went into engineering and not the law when I did my degree.
However, I also emphasise the urgency of this Bill, which I believe the whole House understands, and I am grateful for Members’ support. Families and businesses up and down the country are hugely exposed to the energy crisis. It is crucial that the schemes—and I think all noble Lords share this aim—are rolled out and delivered in the way they are intended as quickly as possible and without delay. I would contend that provisions in the Bill, including the breadth of certain powers, enable to us to do just that.
I hope that I have been able to provide the House with sufficient assurances about how the Government will use the powers that we seek to take and hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, that is an interesting explanation from the lawyers about whether it is a Henry VIII clause. If it looks like a Henry VIII clause and it smells like a Henry VIII clause, it is a Henry VIII clause.
My noble friends Lord Rooker and Lord Cunningham made the important point that the DPRR Committee in its report has condemned the powers contained in Clause 22. There is no getting away from it: if it is pace that the Government are seeking, subjecting those instruments to the affirmative procedure would not significantly inhibit the pace at which they operate. The powers are vast and huge, and the example that the Minister has given is an acceptable one, but it is not the only circumstance that one can envisage. One can envisage the powers being used not by the noble Lord but by a succeeding Minister, in a way that is unforeseen by him. Therefore, the concerns remain. However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Lord Teverson
“(4A) Regulations under this section must apply to non-domestic customers—(a) that signed a fixed tariff agreement with their energy provider after 1 December 2021, and (b) on variable rates tariffs.”Member’s explanatory statement
Currently non-domestic customers who signed a fixed tariff agreement after 1 April 2022, and those on variable rates tariffs, benefit from the reduced energy charges. This amendment would extend this support to those customers who signed fixed tariff agreements between 1 December 2021 and 1 April 2022.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 6 in this group. Amendment 5 relates to the extension of the energy bill relief scheme for non-domestic customers. I hope that it is something that the Minister will be able to agree or reaffirm from the Dispatch Box, because it is really very straightforward. When the scheme was announced by the Government, only businesses that signed a fixed agreement after 1 April 2022 and those on variable rates were set to benefit. Businesses with energy agreements signed before this date—I repeat, that was 1 April—were unable to get a subsidy to their unit prices.
In the debate on the economy and the growth plan of 2022 in the House on Monday 10 October—so not so long ago—my noble friend Lord Fox raised this with the Minister, who responded that the Government would be “revising the cut-off date” so that contracts taken out between 1 December 2021 and 31 March 2022 would be “eligible for relief”. Can the Minister confirm that this is still the Government’s intention? If it is, given the uncertainty that businesses are facing with the current state of government, will he accept my Amendment 5, which seeks to put that commitment in the Bill? I see no reason why that should not be the case, to give absolute clarity and greater certainty to the non-domestic sector.
On Amendment 6, the alternative fuel payment scheme is intended to deliver a one-off payment of £100 to UK households which are not on the mains gas grid—I declare my own interest in that I rely on biomass and oil—and therefore use alternative fuels such as heating oil to heat their homes.
Powers in the Bill will enable the Government to deliver support via electricity bills under a similar delivery model to the energy bills support scheme, which, as noble Members will know, is a £400 non-repayable discount for eligible households to help with their energy bills, as announced in April by then Chancellor and soon-to-be Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Households who are eligible for but do not receive alternative fuel payments or the £100 heat network payment—a very round number, as we saw on Second Reading—because they do not have a relationship with an electricity supplier, for example, will receive the £100 via this alternative fund, which will be provided by a designated body. According to the Government, they will set out timing and details of this payment soon. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether we have any more detail at this time.
It is estimated that more than 4 million people in the UK are off the mains gas grid and rely on other means to heat their homes. As I know in Cornwall, fuel poverty is greater in rural areas than in urban areas and, crucially, it is often deeper, meaning that rural families need to save more money to make sure their energy bills are affordable. This amendment says that it is vital that a fast and easy way to use this system be set up to get these payments to them. Amendment 6 would ensure that payments are made directly to consumers’ bank accounts, which is clearly the quickest and easiest way to make the biggest difference to rural and off-grid customers. Therefore, I hope the Government will be able to accept this amendment, but I certainly hope that the Minister will be able to give more detail and a timeframe so that these particular consumers know their future. I beg to move.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, our Amendments 37 and 38 seek to backdate the electricity and gas price reduction scheme to 8 September, which was the day the Government first announced the energy price guarantee. Apart from anything else, this would produce money to be passed on to customers’ bills. It may seem a small change, but it would be extremely popular among all UK households.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Rooker, Lord Teverson, Lord Lennie and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, for their amendments, which seek to make changes to the schemes to reduce energy bills—namely the alternative fuel payments, the domestic energy price guarantee and the energy bill relief scheme.
First, turning to Amendment 5 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the energy bill relief scheme, I am pleased to note that he agrees with the decision to extend the eligibility date for customers on fixed-term contracts back to 1 December 2021, which my noble friend Lord Callanan confirmed in this House on 10 October. This will be implemented in regulations. I can give further reassurance that when the scheme was first announced on 23 September, it stated that all non-domestic customers on variable contracts, as well as deemed and flexible contracts, will be eligible for the scheme. Given that these details have already been published and will be implemented in regulations, the proposed changes to the Bill are unnecessary. I hope that gives the noble Lord the reassurance he was seeking.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which seeks to remove Clause 9. This clause provides for the establishment of the energy bill relief scheme in Great Britain. This scheme will provide a price reduction to ensure that all businesses and other non-domestic customers—for example, charities and public sector organisations such as schools and hospitals—are protected from excessively high energy bills over the winter period. Under the provisions in Clause 9, the Secretary of State may, by regulations, reduce the amount that all eligible businesses and other non-domestic customers would be charged for their gas and electricity. Clause 9 allows for this through the calculation of a notional wholesale price for gas and electricity, referred to as the government-supported price, with a discount being provided which pays the difference between the government-supported price and the wholesale price.
The clause provides for regulations to detail how the Government may calculate this reduction. We intend for the scheme to run initially for a six-month period. Schedule 6 to the Bill allows for the scheme to be extended for up to three further consecutive periods for up to two years. We recognise that the diversity of contracts between suppliers and their non-domestic customers makes implementation of the scheme complex. This clause therefore provides for necessary powers to support successful delivery of all aspects of the scheme, and to allow the Government to respond appropriately to any rapid changes in the market. I therefore ask that Clause 9 stand part of the Bill.
Turning to Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the alternative fuel payment scheme, households eligible for the domestic alternative fuel payment scheme in Great Britain will receive £100 as a credit on their electricity bill under a similar delivery model to the energy bills support scheme; we are exploring a similar route for Northern Ireland. We understand that consumers are already experiencing significantly increased living costs, and that is why the Government are delivering this support to customers as fast as possible and have committed to delivery of the payment this winter. Requiring that payments be made direct to consumer bank accounts would significantly slow down the ability to deliver, meaning that the target to pay this winter would be unlikely to be met. This Government do not have an established direct relationship with the relevant consumers, and a bespoke delivery scheme would need to be created, which would take significant time.
Delivering the domestic alternative fuel payment as a fixed credit amount via electricity bills will be significantly quicker than other possible routes and means that customers need take no action to receive it. Consumers eligible for the domestic alternative fuel payment but who do not have a relationship with an electricity supplier will receive the £100 via the alternative fuel payment discretionary fund. Details on how to access this fund will be confirmed shortly.
Turning to Amendments 37 and 38, on the domestic energy price reduction scheme, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, I thank the noble Lords for their amendments to enable backdating of the electricity and gas price reduction scheme in Great Britain to 8 September. The energy price guarantee was implemented from 1 October so that consumers can expect to pay well below the scheduled increase in the price cap to £3,549 for a typical dual-fuel household. The energy price guarantee has been designed to work in combination with the May 2022 cost of living package to ensure that the most vulnerable households will see little change in their energy costs between last winter and the coming winter. I therefore see no need to alter the operative date of the energy price guarantee schemes. I hope that on this basis, the noble Lords will not feel it necessary to press their amendments.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister’s statement on the backdating to December, and that the obligation that was accepted by the Minister earlier this month is to be repeated. I thank her for that, but I am not quite sure where we are with households that are due the £100 but who do not have a relationship with an electricity supply company, which is probably not insignificant. Before I withdraw Amendment 5, can the Minister be a little clearer on how this is going to function?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. As he correctly observes, it is difficult to implement in practice because by their very nature, those households do not have a relationship with their energy supplier. We are urgently looking at a delivery mechanism, with all the appropriate protections against fraud et cetera. Delivery is likely to be through local authorities, but we are still working on a precise mechanism and as soon as we have more details, we will update the House.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I thank the Minister for that. If you cannot do it directly through Ministers, then through local authorities is probably the right way to do it. I know that Cornwall council is already starting to make some preparations in that area. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 5.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, before calling Amendment 8, I must advise the House that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, will be taking part remotely.
Amendment 8
Lord Teverson
“Report on effectiveness of energy efficiency programmes in reducing energy costs
(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must review the impact of energy efficiency programmes in reducing energy costs in accordance with this section.(2) A review under this section must consider the impact of—(a) the number of homes and business properties which have increased their EPC rating,(b) the number of homes and business properties which have undergone retrofitting programmes, including— (i) fitting of solar panels, and(ii) replacement of gas boilers,(c) increases in renewable energy sources, and(d) public messaging campaigns into changing energy usage habits.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of energy efficiency programmes in reducing energy costs.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, we come back to a subject we always discuss in energy Bills, whether the dormant Energy Bill or the Energy Prices Bill in front of us today: energy efficiency and demand reduction. Whatever the Government say from their Front Bench about what is being done, it is quite clear that this is not seen as a priority in reality. Indeed, as far as I have noticed, it does not feature to any significant extent in this Bill. However, although I accept that the Bill is very much about short-term measures, we still have to look forward to the medium and longer term and how we make sure that, after the payments we are making and the Bill intends to make into the future—which are substantial, with estimates varying from £40 billion to £100 billion, depending on how long these measures last—we do not go back to square one whenever such a crisis arises again, despite having spent literally billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.
This is a very mild amendment. We are being modest because we hope that the Government will accept that we should have at least something in the Bill about energy efficiency. We are asking for a proper and comprehensive review of costs to do with energy efficiency within six months of the Bill being passed. As noble Lords can see from the amendment, we are asking for a review of the impact of
“the number of homes and business properties which have increased their EPC rating … fitting … solar panels, and … replacement of gas boilers, … increases in renewable energy sources, and … public messaging campaigns”.
I would be interested to understand where the Government are on public messaging campaigns at the moment. I understand that the almost-past Government very much resisted them. Can the Minister give us more of an idea of where we are now?
What I am emphasising here is that it is essential that energy efficiency and demand reduction should be at the top of the list of tools of energy policy as a way forward. We clearly need some reference to them in the Bill, while we are making these huge payments, to make sure that businesses are able to continue in the future and that households can afford their energy bills without going into debt—although I fear that many will in any case. That is the core of this amendment and we take this very seriously. We believe that the Government have not performed sufficiently on this during their time in government.
I will also speak briefly to Amendment 9, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who is not in her place at the moment, for her support. Amendment 9 looks forward to where we go after this major splurge of public expenditure. I think a consensus is coming—from consumers, consumer groups and energy companies themselves—on how we need to treat energy Bills in the future, in that we have to move to a different place. One place we could move to is a social tariff. Nothing is perfect in this world. We know that in a situation where people move out of the definition of qualifying for a social tariff, it can have negative effects on income or whatever.
A social tariff would mean those households in fuel poverty being able to solve that issue by paying a different tariff on their electricity from those not in that degree of poverty. We all know that, even without the current crisis, many millions of households are in fuel poverty. This has not been solved by Governments over the years. The long-term way is energy efficiency and demand reduction but, in the medium term, surely we should start planning now for something of the order of a social tariff. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, is taking part remotely and I invite her to speak. She does not seem to be technically available at present; it is therefore open to any other noble Lord to speak to this amendment.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, first, I apologise for being unable to be present at Second Reading. I am speaking to Amendment 12, which my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester has also signed. It sets up the mechanism for the Secretary of State to have a strategic plan for very vulnerable people who would be extremely adversely affected by power outages—for some, probably resulting in death—and for the requirement on energy suppliers to work with the local resilience forums, which are tasked with delivering local emergency plans in communities.
I read the impact assessment with interest. On page 28, paragraph 70, headed “Disability or vulnerability”, states:
“Of those surveyed … by the ONS Wealth and Assets Survey, over 40% of adults in Great Britain have a combined financial and property wealth below £23,249. Of those poorer households 41% have a physical or mental disability ... Furthermore, households with energy-using health equipment will typically be associated with higher energy use and stand to benefit more from the volumetric scheme”.
The Minister may remember that I raised the issue of ensuring electricity supply to the most vulnerable disabled and seriously ill people, who may die if their home electricity supply is not maintained, on 11 October 2022 when the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, asked a Question on energy pricing. I cited our family’s experience when my granddaughter, then aged two, who had to use a ventilator and a heart monitor faced a power outage on her south London estate. I thank the Minister for his response to my question and his being keen to reassure me and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, but I was concerned that BEIS Ministers may not be aware of what is happening in practice and how serious the problem is.
Since 11 October, I have talked to others who rely on ventilators, dialysis machines and other equipment at home. It is clear that the reality of what happened to my granddaughter in a small-scale electrical outage in south London about four years ago is, in practice, not unusual. Let me explain the process. On the advice of the consultants at the Evelina London Children’s Hospital, and as a condition of her being allowed to leave hospital for the first time aged 11 months, my son had brought her home and registered with their energy supplier that she required ventilation and a heart monitor for about 17 hours out of every 24. Without it, she would have to be taken back to the specialist hospital as her lung capacity put her at high risk of death as her oxygen levels would plummet quickly.
My son had understood that the supplier would ensure that there was an alternative supply as soon as possible. On the evening of the outage, my son called the emergency line, who were encouraging: they were on the list for an emergency generator to be delivered to their house. After one hour, it had not arrived. They were told that it could take another two hours. At that time, and because my granddaughter was still quite small, he bundled her and all her medical kit—believe me, a carful—and drove to our house, an hour away. Believe me, if you have watched a small child struggling for breath, you do not hang around.
There is absolutely no doubt that the register of vulnerable users is helpful. However, the reality of a power cut means that the small batteries in those items that they have as a back-up will not last for many hours, especially if the outage is not planned and people do not know how long it will last for. That is why the suppliers knew that they had to get a generator to my granddaughter’s house. But they failed.
My concern is that, in the event of mass outages in the cold months of January and February next year, however unlikely, much larger swathes of the country will lose electricity in a number of hours. National Grid was predicting even worse last week—even if that is also deemed to be highly unlikely—and it might mean that the whole country would be without power from late afternoon until late at night for a number of days a week in January and February.
The Disability News Service picked up on the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and I asked. John Pring at the DNS has been investigating current practice and how large outages would be handled by the energy suppliers, so he rang them. They said, “Talk to the Department of BEIS”, so he rang BEIS, which said, “Talk to the Department of Health and Social Care”—I have no idea why. The DHSC has not even replied, probably because it is not involved in emergency provision planning.
Many disability groups are very concerned about this coming winter too, as they, like my family, have experience of support in an emergency not being quite what was expected. Neither BEIS nor the DHSC seemed aware that the energy suppliers should be talking to their local resilience forums, run by each local authority, which have a statutory duty under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to deliver their local emergency health plan in the event of such an incident. However, directors of public health whom I have talked to, who are jointly employed by their authority and by the NHS, are core to LRFs, and they say that talking to energy suppliers is extremely difficult.
It is important to be clear that not all help for those whose lives depend on electricity will be on the register. Those registered with suppliers will include the elderly and the frail who must be kept warm, but they do not need individual generators at home. The LRFs need to plan with energy suppliers where generators will go in community halls or other planned venues and how vulnerable people will be taken to that venue. The current advice from suppliers to disabled people on their helpline is—wait for it—get a thermos and more battery packs. I have to say that that is causing alarm, and it tells me that proper planning is not going on, and people who are supposed to be giving advice do not know what it should be. That is also confirmed by the directors of public health whom I have talked to.
Under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, local resilience forums are level 1 responders, and energy suppliers are level 2 responders. Energy suppliers keep the register and must liaise with them. The problem is that at the moment the LRFs are entirely reliant on the energy suppliers communicating with them. As with Covid, when the local resilience forums played a fantastic role as we went into lockdown in their communities, the possibility of a serious outage means that there needs to be real planning now because, otherwise, people will die in a power cut. All the elements needed are available through various duties on differing people; the problem is that they are not joined up. Hence my amendment, which is to try to join up the key partners at a national level through the powers of the Secretary of State to create a strategic plan, while ensuring an action plan at a local level which gives a duty to energy suppliers to maintain contact with their local resilience forums.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to say that the technical gremlins have now been slain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, is online. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Brinton for tabling the amendment, to which I have added my name.
There will be a lot of severely disabled people who, like me, are terrified of power cuts. We rely through the day and night on electricity to keep us alive. We are not talking about just hot drinks and hot water bottles. In my case, I am talking about a feeding pump, ventilators, riser lavatories, an electric hospital bed, two lifts, a door opener and a wheelchair that needs charging—and, of course, heating and light. There are many others much worse than I am.
In answer to my noble friend’s question on 11 October, the Minister said that the Government would do
“all we can to protect the most vulnerable.”—[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 662.]
Can he be a bit more specific about exactly what the Government will do? The energy companies are not exactly strapped for cash at the moment, so I hope that, between the energy companies and the Government, there will be proper, practical planning for the most vulnerable customers if outages occur, which could literally make the difference between life and death.
We need reassurance on this; otherwise, we will be fearful of every winter storm. Can the Minister give us this reassurance?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
May I beg the indulgence of your Lordships’ House: I was in the Grand Committee?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am very sorry, but the Companion is quite clear: if you were not here at the start of the debate, you are unable to speak.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I am sad that we cannot hear the words of the noble Baroness, and I very much support her amendment, because she, like me, believes that this Government are not doing anything like enough to reduce energy consumption, the amount of energy expended nor making the most efficient use of the sources of energy available to us.
Other countries are doing far more than we are. Germany, for instance, is rushing to try to reduce its energy consumption by 20% in a very short space of time; we are doing very little about that. On energy efficiency, it was only 11 days ago that the European Union countries got together to celebrate Energy Efficiency Day, and Mr Frans Timmermans, the Commission vice-president responsible for the Green Deal, stated the bleeding obvious, because he said:
“saving energy, not using energy, is the cheapest energy”.
I agree with him, given that it is perfectly possible, given the Long Title of the Bill, as my noble friend on the Front Bench pointed out, to have done far more on these issues.
In truth, from this Government, we have had scheme after scheme which has floundered and left the industry in total disarray. As a result, since I was a Minister with some responsibility for this, the amount of energy efficiency work in this country has declined by a staggering 90%. It has gone down by 50% in the past 12 months alone. What we get from the Government is a lot of fine words—the Minister trots them out from time to time—from various government documents. The trouble is that if you follow through on what is said, you discover that there is not much action to back it up.
As an example, the Clean Growth Strategy, a document produced by this Government in October 2017, stated very clearly that:
“The Government will look at a long-term trajectory for energy performance standards across the private rented sector, with the aim of as many private rented homes as possible being upgraded to EPC Band C by 2030, where practical, cost effective and affordable. We will consider options with a view to consulting in 2018”.
The consultation took place, and was in fact extended because of Covid to 8 January 2021. That was 21 months ago, yet we have still not had any evidence of a response from the Government. When are we going to get the results of the consultation and the action promised by the Government around privately rented homes?
The situation is made even worse when you look at socially rented homes, in which the vast majority of those who are less well off are living. Five years ago, that same document said that the Government were going to
“look at how social housing can meet similar standards on the same timetable.”
I understand that consultation is needed before you can go ahead, but one would have thought that by now the consultation would have started. Yet in a letter to me and many other noble Lords in the last few days, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, wrote:
“The Government has now committed to consulting on introducing standards in the social rented sector. This will happen within six months of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill gaining consent”.
The consultation has not even started for something promised five years ago.
We have a lot of fine words from the Government, but in many areas the action does not take place. This is why it is so important that we have Amendment 8 on the statute book, at least in the very minimal way that requires the Government to give us a report on what is happening and what the benefits really are.
In relation to that, I acknowledge that the Minister pointed out at Second Reading that the Government have introduced one new scheme relating to energy efficiency, called ECO+. It will somehow run alongside ECO4, which was preceded by ECO1, 2 and 3. However, we do not know how that will work. It would be helpful to have a little more detail about how the two schemes will work together.
I have a specific question to ask the Minister about this new wonder-scheme. We know from all the evidence that the previous ECO schemes have been raising improvements to people’s homes. The Government claim that those schemes have led to improvements saving people up to £1,000 a year. Looking at the ECO+ documentation, my understanding is that the scheme is in fact expected to lead to a saving for consumers of about only £200 a year. The difference between the savings of the early ECO schemes and what appears to be that of the new scheme is huge. I hope that the Minister can explain to me why that is the case.
I have a couple of amendments down, which I will speak to very briefly. Amendment 10 is based on something from the Government’s own document. On page 12 of this year’s British Energy Security Strategy—which, incidentally, they described as ambitious—it says:
“We will cut the cost for consumers who want to make improvements”
to energy efficiency by
“zero-rating VAT for the next five years on the installation of energy saving materials”.
Some of that was introduced by the then Chancellor—I cannot remember how many Chancellors ago that was—back in the Spring Statement. I welcomed this at the time, but I genuinely do not believe it went anywhere near far enough. A large number of energy-saving materials were not included in the list.
At Second Reading, I raised one such example: retrofitting a battery to an existing solar heating scheme. Introducing a battery makes a system infinitely more efficient, which is a benefit to the homeowner and a benefit to the nation as a whole because more energy can be put back into the national grid, not least at times of high demand. At that time, I proposed that VAT on additional, retrofitted batteries should be zero-rated. Batteries needed to be retrofitted because, when many schemes were first introduced, batteries were either too expensive or people did not see the benefits of them.
I then looked at some of the other items that were not in the list. I was staggered to discover that something as simple as double-glazing was not included. The figures are staggering: 86% of homes already have double-glazing but a high proportion—more than a quarter—is old fashioned and nowhere near as efficient as modern double-glazing. The relevant associations which produce the figures are firmly of the view that, if all windows could be brought up to current standards, a staggering £14.5 billion could be saved.
I am not asking the Government to pay for all the double-glazing to be done. However, we know from all the research evidence that reducing VAT would significantly help many people take on the additional burden of uprating their windows to modern double-glazing standards. Evidence has shown the impact of the reduction in VAT in other areas. I am convinced that reducing VAT on double-glazing and on some of the other items mentioned in Amendment 10 would be of enormous benefit.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 11 in my name. I draw the Minister’s attention to my earlier speeches. He has heard me speak on this subject in one form or another on numerous occasions, so I will not repeat it all. Suffice to say that all the evidence shows that this Government claim to believe that putting targets into legislation is beneficial for driving forward investment. I have 60 quotes from current and former Ministers and from government departmental documents that back up the claim that targets put into legislation ensure that action happens.
Amendment 11 is simple. It seeks to put into legislation the targets that the Government have already set for improving the energy efficiency of our homes. It would bring fuel-poor homes up to EPC level C by 2030 and all the rest of the housing stock by 2035. In this country, unlike, for instance, in the countries of our neighbouring friends in the European Union, we have far less efficient homes—15 million homes are below the appropriate energy efficiency targets set by the Government.
The industry has made it very clear that if it is now to invest in the research, training and equipment needed to start doing more work in this field, it needs to have the confidence of targets placed into legislation. The Government have refused this on numerous occasions so far, and not once have I heard a good reason from any Minister. I am optimistic that, on this occasion, I might get a decent reply. I look forward to hearing it.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, many of the amendments in this group are sensible and could easily be accepted by the Government. We on these Benches will support Amendment 8 if the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, tests the opinion of the House. The Member’s explanatory statement is exactly as the noble Lord said, and it is a modest amendment:
“This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report”—
just to report—
“on the impact of energy efficiency programmes in reducing energy costs.”
It is modest indeed, and I am at a loss as to why His Majesty’s Government are not willing to accept it.
To quote from the government website:
“Improving the energy efficiency of UK buildings is the quickest way we can support families and businesses, to respond to rising energy prices.”
I am sure we all agree. It goes on:
“Improving the efficiency of our homes could reduce our heating bills by around 20% and reduce our dependency on foreign gas.”
Again, that is something I am sure we all agree with, so these amendments are in line with BEIS’s priorities and language.
As the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, said, the UK has some of the least energy-efficient housing in Europe. According to my figures, 19 million homes are estimated to be below EPC band C. His figure was 15 million; I am sure he will forgive the 4 million. In excess of 10 million homes are worse than EPC band C. Under the Conservatives, home insulation rates have plummeted. In 2013, the then Government cut energy efficiency programmes, after which insulation rates fell by 92% in 2013. Further to that, new statistics show that home insulation dropped again by 62% in the second quarter of 2022 compared with the first quarter, with only 35,000 installations being recorded. The Resolution Foundation estimates that 9 million households are paying an extra £170 per year on their energy bills as a result of these failures. Since then, the Government have botched the green homes grant, which has yet to be adequately replaced.
These amendments would help with the bills people have to pay, and they would help the Government, the country and consumers. On top of this, Labour would give the devolved Administrations the power and resources to bring every home in their area up to EPC band C or higher within a decade.
The chief executive of E.ON, Michael Lewis, has pointed out that a sustained programme of energy efficiency could have reduced the amount of energy used in UK homes by 25%. That is the equivalent of six Hinkley Point C power stations. As we have heard throughout the debate on these amendments, the cheapest energy is the energy we do not use. A simple uprating of a home from EPC band D to band C would save the bill payer some £500 a year on the basis of April prices, so if it is put to the test we will support Amendment 8.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for their interventions. This group includes amendments relating to energy efficiency and energy savings which would help to reduce energy costs and, of course, ensure energy supply for vulnerable consumers, which I will come on to shortly. I completely agree with noble Lords that improving the energy performance of domestic and non-domestic properties is vital in the context of affordability, energy security and fuel poverty.
Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Teverson, Lord Foster and Lord McNicol, would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on the effectiveness of energy efficiency programmes in reducing energy costs. The Government already evaluate the impact of their energy efficiency programmes and publish extensive energy statistics and evaluation reports as a matter of course. There really is no shortage of published materials on these matters, and I believe that they sufficiently cover the intention of this amendment. Bedtime reading for noble Lords interested in this matter includes the Annual Fuel Poverty Statistics Report: 2021, the Household Energy Efficiency Statistics, and the English Housing Survey, commissioned annually, on housing circumstances, condition and energy efficiency in England. Therefore, I am not sure there is any more information we could provide noble Lords with, and we believe this amendment to be unnecessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also asked about a government public campaign on energy demand reduction. As I have mentioned in this House before, I have been working with officials and we have just launched our new website on GOV.UK—we have migrated the SEA site over to the government website and updated it. We now provide home owners with a kind of home energy MOT that gives impartial recommendations and could help them save hundreds of pounds a year. It is linked to the EPC database, so it provides personalised information on people’s property. Of course, we will be rolling that out further and linking it to several other sources of advice from energy companies, charities and others, to make sure that people have the information they need to make energy efficiency savings.
Amendment 9, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would require the Secretary of State to formally assess the merits of introducing social energy tariffs. I would never accuse the noble Lord of wanting to go back in time or of being stuck in the past, but in 2011 the Government of which his party was a part replaced social tariffs in the energy sector with the warm home discount scheme. The warm home discount is a better scheme than the then social tariff scheme; it provides a consistent level of support, standardised across all the participating energy suppliers. It has been an improvement on the previous arrangement of voluntary social tariffs—not all companies took part in them—where the level of benefits and eligibility varied between energy suppliers.
I hope the noble Lord is not suggesting that we should go back to that time. The warm home discount was introduced as an improvement to the old social tariff system. Any new social tariff would be almost identical to the warm home discount in its design and operation. It is already a mandated, targeted mechanism to reduce the cost of energy for those in vulnerable circumstances, on benefits et cetera. If the noble Lord thinks about it, he will accept that this is a better way of doing essentially the same thing, but I do not disagree at all with the objective. In short, this proposal simply seeks to provide benefits to vulnerable energy consumers that are already provided by the existing warm home discount model, and it would add a further level of complexity to the support system. Certainly, to judge by my postbag from Members of Parliament, it is already quite a complex system with complex eligibility requirements, and I do not think we would be well served by adding to that complexity.
Before I turn to Amendments 10 and 11 from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, let me answer the questions he asked me. He compared ECO4, the current iteration of the energy company obligation, and the forthcoming ECO+, and highlighted that there could be different levels of bill savings in each one. The reason for that is that the energy company obligation is an obligation based on suppliers; it used to be bill funded and is now funded by the Exchequer. One of the elements of the mini-Budget that remains—the last time I looked—is the ECO+ announcement that I worked hard to get in there, and we will shortly be consulting on the way it works. We project lesser bill savings because we want to do more under that scheme. The latest iteration of ECO4 looks at whole-house retrofits, so it is obviously much more expensive and treats fewer whole-house property refits. We have to consult on the details of ECO+, but the idea is that it would provide a smaller number of targeted measures, possibly only two or three, such as loft insulation, cavity wall insulation and heating controls.
Even though they are both called “ECO”, they will be targeted at different parts of the market; indeed I hope ECO+ will be targeted more at the able-to-pay market—those who are not necessarily on benefits and slightly above benefit level but who are still suffering and could take advantage of some support. The noble Lord will not have long to wait. We are working on policy design now and we will consult shortly on how that will work. The House will have an opportunity to debate the regulations and it is my intention to have this up and running as early as possible next year.
The noble Lord also asked me about the PRS regulations. As he correctly said, we consulted on them; we are currently looking at the recommendations and working on a government response. If I am honest with the noble Lord, it is about getting the balance right between wanting to see improvements and operating in the private rented sector and not doing so at the expense of less rented properties being available where there are already shortages in many areas. It is about trying to get the balance right between, on the one hand, obliging landlords to improve their property and, on the other, not wanting to provide them with incentives to leave the market.
Amendment 10 would zero-rate VAT for battery storage when used to store energy generated by solar panels, and measures to reduce energy demand in domestic properties. The installation of central heating system controls and insulation draught stripping already qualify for the zero rate for energy saving materials. The noble Lord will, of course, know that changes to tax policy are considered as part of the Budget process. If he has ever had interactions with the Treasury, he will know that this is important and will be jealously guarded. Tax policy decisions are taken in the context of the Government’s wider fiscal position. It permits sufficient time to consider the impact of any changes on government finances and individual taxpayers. The Treasury would wish him to know that that it keeps all taxes under review and welcomes representations to help inform future decisions on tax policy. I am sure that the noble Lord will want to feed in his views to Treasury, as we all do.
Amendment 11 would make it a legal requirement, as of 31 December 2022, for all fuel-poor households to be upgraded to band C by 2030 and all other households by 2035, with specified exemptions. The Government already have a statutory requirement to upgrade as many fuel-poor homes to band C as is reasonably practicable by 2030, and we have set out in the 2021 fuel poverty strategy how we intend to do so. The Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 placed an obligation on the Secretary of State to make regulations that have as their objective the improvement of households in fuel poverty by a target date. Such regulations have been made for each of the devolved nations. The Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have set out their own approaches. This amendment seeks to replicate that requirement. I therefore submit that it is unnecessary.
We remain committed to our aspiration of improving as many homes as possible to EPC C by 2035, where that is cost effective, affordable and practical. However, we need to retain flexibility to choose the best approach, including how and when to introduce reforms, rather than being restricted by a statutory longstop date. This will ensure that we set policy that reflects best practice in the industry and that homeowners will not be required to make upgrades that are sometimes inappropriate for their property.
We move on to the important issues raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thomas, in Amendment 12, which would require a
“strategic plan for the supply of energy for those who are disabled or seriously ill”.
I know that this is an important issue and one to which the noble Baronesses are deeply committed.
As I think the noble Baroness said, electricity distribution network operators are obliged to maintain priority services registers to ensure that support is given to the most vulnerable customers during power disruption, including those customers who are disabled and rely on electricity-powered devices. Furthermore, as the noble Baroness also said, under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, network operators are required to liaise with local authorities, strategic co-ordinating groups and third parties such as local resilience forums and partnerships to share information about vulnerable customers and work together to provide welfare support.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I asked the Minister whether he would meet me, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and representatives of disabled peoples’ organisations. I think I heard him say that this was more appropriately handled by the Cabinet Office. Would he help me to ensure that this same group, including myself, could meet the relevant Minister in the Cabinet Office on this issue?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will certainly reply, although of course I cannot speak for Cabinet Office Ministers. I checked and they do have responsibility for ensuring that the Civil Contingencies Act is followed and implemented. I will certainly do my best to facilitate what the noble Baroness wants.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s response to my noble friend Lady Brinton on that important issue. He said that there are already lots of statistics for energy efficiency: absolutely, there are. They are all over the place, and every time you need to search for them, you have to work out what they are. One, from the energy poverty statistics, points out that, in England alone, 3.6 million households are in fuel poverty. That was in 2020, before this crisis.
Although the Bill, which we welcome in principle, is there to solve that problem—or not make it any worse—let us remember that the present average price cap is £2,500 per household, which is getting on for double what it was in 2020. So the level of fuel poverty will hugely increase.
There may be good will or a wish among the Government but, whatever the Minister says—I do not doubt his sincerity—there is never a major move forward in the form of action on energy efficiency and demand reduction that actually makes a difference. As my colleague and noble friend Lord Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, said, we have some of the least efficient housing and commercial building stock in this country. That is why we need to reboot the whole energy efficiency and demand reduction conversation, which must lead to action. This amendment is not the end of that process; it is a modest but essential start. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
Lord Teverson
“Energy profits levy
(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an assessment of the additional revenue that would result from the following policy measures—(a) amending the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy so that it applies to oil and gas profits incurred since 1 October 2021,(b) removing from the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy allowances for investment in oil and gas extraction,(c) increasing the rate of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy beyond 25%, and(d) implementing a windfall tax on the excess profits of coal- and gas-fired power stations.(2) In addition, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an official estimate of the oil and gas super profits over the next 2 years.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament no later than 31 October 2022.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament detailing the impact of expanding the government’s Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, without, I hope, taking away too much tension from the Committee, I am not going to press this amendment so I shall be relatively brief in explaining it. It has an important basis in the Government’s Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act. It also has an element of looking at how the Bill and previous schemes discriminate against the renewables industry compared with fossil fuels.
A key element of Amendment 13 is to assess the impact of that date in the levy so that it applies to oil and gas profits incurred since 1 October 2021. The Government’s energy profits levy is effective from 26 May, meaning that profits accrued before that date are outside its scope. It was clear over a year ago that surging profits for the oil and gas companies were in stark contrast to the real struggle faced by ordinary people and small businesses faced with high and soaring energy costs. In fact, it was one year ago today that my right honourable friend Ed Davey MP called for the windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas companies, accompanied in due course by other parties and other parties represented in this House.
If the Chancellor had responded at that time and a levy had been in place from October, it would have raised billions more. If I could just remind the Committee of the profits since then, BP saw profits rise by 138% between quarter 1 of 2021 and quarter 1 of 2022—from £2.6 billion to £6.2 billion; it was similar for Shell. These combined super-profits alone amount to £7.5 billion in the first quarter of 2022. That is £7.5 billion more than they made in the same quarter in 2021. Had those windfall profits had been taxed by the same amount, it would have raised £1.8 billion.
What we are looking for in particular here has to do with the levy. Like proposed new subsection (1) in Labour’s Amendment 14, proposed new subsection (1)(b) in Amendment 13 calls from the removal of allowances in the levy for investment in oil and gas extraction. This is one of the key differences between the revenue cap on renewables and the fossil fuel industry, where there is that huge investment incentive of getting 80% back for investment in—dare I say?—fossil fuels, obviously. That is where we want there to be quality.
We on these Benches know, as do Members from other parts of the House, that renewables, rather than fossil fuels, are really the way forward. The Government have committed themselves to a large amount of investment in offshore wind. We recognise that but we need to keep at least a level playing field in taxation matters between renewables and fossil fuels. I very much believe that we need then to push investment in renewables further forward. I beg to move.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, the whole question of the energy market is complicated and beset by a series of legislative procedures which can cause confusion. That said, the new clause proposed by Amendment 14 would simply require the Secretary of State to produce a report assessing the impact of removing the investment allowance from oil and gas companies, as set out in the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act, and, in particular, to assess the impact on domestic and non-domestic users. Currently, oil and gas companies receive an 80% rebate on every pound invested but that is not available to renewables or other zero-carbon technology. This appears to tilt the market away from investments in cheaper domestic clean power sources towards oil, gas and fracking.
The proposed new clause would require the Government to assess the revenue and profits of electricity generators and oil and gas producers every six months, to see what the effects would be. Amendment 20 would require the Secretary of State to disaggregate the cost of production of natural gas from the cost of production of other energy sources to reduce the cost of electricity to domestic and commercial consumers. This dates back to when gas was the only game in town for energy companies; now, renewables account for 43% of the generation mix.
Gas prices have increased fourfold since the beginning of 2011, which means that consumers are paying much more for electricity than the average cost of generation across the market. Splitting the market is a likely consequence, by creating a separate pool for cheaper, intermittent, renewable generation and a second for traditional fossil fuel, which in turn could lead to consumers determining when to use cheaper electricity for things such as car charging by timing their usage accordingly. Electricity prices would be determined competitively by companies considering their own boundaries rather than working through gas. I give notice of our attention to move Amendment 14 to a vote.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this area, on the energy profits levy, including an amendment that seeks to reduce the costs of electricity to consumers.
I start with Amendment 13, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the additional revenue that could be raised from expanding the energy profits levy. I shall say something very similar to what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, that all taxes are kept under review, and any changes in tax policy should be considered and announced by the Chancellor, in line with the usual Budget processes. The Treasury view, therefore, is that this amendment is not appropriate for this Bill.
The energy profits levy has been designed with a bespoke tax base, appropriate to respond to the extraordinary global context of high oil and gas prices. The levy is expected to raise substantial revenue while providing companies with a new incentive for investment. It is right that we continue to encourage investment in North Sea oil and gas to strengthen the UK’s vital offshore oil and gas sector and bolster our future energy security. The amendment would also require the Government to produce an estimate of upstream profits expected in the next two years. Such estimates will be highly sensitive to commodity price fluctuations. Given the volatility in prices since last year and that most companies’ out-turn profits are publicly available, it is not clear that producing such an estimate would be a beneficial use of public resources.
I turn to Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord McNicol. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of removing the investment allowance in the energy profits levy. The Treasury has made clear its view that it is not for this House to discuss the matters raised by this amendment in relation to this Bill, on the basis that fiscal issues are a matter for the House of Commons. Tax policy changes are an area for the Treasury, which believes that the Chancellor should consider and announce any changes in line with the usual Budget process. Taxation on the profits of oil and gas producers is not in scope of this Bill. The energy profits levy, introduced under the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022, has been in place since May. It is not standard for the Government to publish assessments of the economic impacts of measures that they are not introducing. The Government already monitor the UK oil and gas sector; data on upstream production is published regularly on GOV.UK. It is not clear how a report on the impact of a hypothetical change would be a beneficial use of public resources.
I turn to Amendment 15, also tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord McNicol, which would require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the revenue and profits of electricity generators and oil and gas producers every six months. The profits of oil and gas producers are not in scope of these measures but are subject to the energy profits levy, which has been in place since May. The out-turn revenue and profits of most electricity generators are already in the public domain, so I do not believe this amendment is necessary. The objective of the Energy Prices Bill is to protect consumers from very high energy prices. We recognise that we must strike a balance that is fair to generators, achieves value for money for consumers and maintains investor confidence. That is why it is appropriate that the House gets the chance to debate fully the first set of regulations made under the temporary cost-plus revenue limit.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lennie
“Report on additional expenditure treated as incurred for purposes of section 1 of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before Parliament a report on the effect of removing the allowance under section 2(3) of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022.(2) The report must set out projections of the effect of the reduction set out in subsection (1) on domestic and non-domestic energy bills.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Secretary of State to produce a report assessing the impact of removing the investment allowance for oil and gas companies as set out in the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act, and in particular to assess the impact on domestic and non-domestic bills.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, the welcome part of the Minister’s statement was the consideration of disaggregating gas from electricity. We welcome that and look forward to seeing the outcome. But Amendment 14 simply asks for a report to be produced; it is not trying to interfere in Treasury decisions or to do anything about fiscal policy. It is simply trying to find out whether the market is distorted and, if it is, by how much. I wish to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
Lord Lennie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Lennie make the powers in Clause 22 subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure including a sunset Clause.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I just want to remind the House of the warnings and the contribution from the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Cunningham, about the Government ignoring the recommendations of the DPRRC as against the normal practice of this House. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, before we move to the regret Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, I will just outline the next steps on the Energy Prices Bill. Noble Lords now have 30 minutes to table amendments to the Bill on Report. Therefore, amendments need to be tabled by 6.50 pm. Members can do so with the Public Bill Office in the usual way. The House will resume proceedings on the Bill at a time to be displayed on the annunciator.
Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Regulations 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That this House regrets that the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Regulations 2022 (SI 2022/752) do not take adequate steps to protect claimants from financial hardship removing (1) the requirement to evaluate the managed migration programme after the initial 10,000 claimants have been transferred, and (2) the obligation to involve Parliament in the decision to expand the rollout of the programme nationally.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, my regret Motion relates to the regulations which amend the process of “managed migration”, the means by which DWP plans to move people who are currently claiming legacy benefits to universal credit. Some 2.5 million households receive legacy benefits, with most receiving ESA or tax credits. Some of those households will move on to universal credit over time through “natural migration” if, for example, their circumstances change. Some will choose to move and some will end their benefit claims altogether. The rest will be moved on to universal credit via a compulsory managed migration process. This was originally intended to be completed by April 2017. It is now due to happen, I believe, by late 2024. Will the Minister confirm if the current aim is still to complete migration of all legacy benefit claims by late 2024?
Concerns about this process have been expressed over many years, both within Parliament and outside. Originally, we all assumed the term “managed migration” meant that DWP would in fact manage the process of transferring people from the current benefit on to universal credit, but that is not what is going to happen. Rather, people will get a letter telling them to apply for universal credit and three months later their benefits will be stopped, even if they have not made an application for UC. If they do not make a successful application within that time, they will no longer be eligible for transitional protection, which is the only guarantee they have that they will not be worse off when they move to universal credit. I will return to this.
The original managed migration regulations were introduced in 2018, but the volume of concern from many quarters, including the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, led to their being withdrawn. After a couple of false starts, some new regulations were introduced in January 2019. These still, however, did not address some of the key concerns about the migration process.
DWP began testing the migration process in 2019 through a pilot, which was expected to last some 12 months before being evaluated and the process gradually scaled up. Such was the concern that the then Secretary of State undertook to come back to Parliament before the full rollout. The 2019 regulations permitted only 10,000 migration notices to universal credit to be made, after which Parliament would have to vote specifically to extend the migration to the rest of the remaining legacy benefit caseload. However, after only a handful of cases, Covid hit and the pilot was abandoned.
These new regulations remove that 10,000 limit, leaving the Government free to scale up the rollout entirely at their discretion, without any further reference to Parliament. In place of a pilot, DWP is running a “discovery phase”, but there is no transparency about how this will work or what the learning is from it. Without information about success criteria and performance, there is no way for Parliament to hold the Government to account on this hugely complex and vital project. DWP was due to publish an evaluation strategy and a full evaluation for the pilot, but I believe it is not planning to do so for the discovery phase. Is that true? If it is not doing so, will she explain why not?
I commend the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its valiant if ultimately fruitless efforts to get DWP to provide more information and answer questions about this new approach. DWP’s case seems to be in essence that it managed lots of new applications very quickly during the pandemic, so it does not need a pilot to prepare it to scale up. However, as the SLSC points out, it offered no evidence to support that view. It said:
“Our concerns were not simply an issue about gearing up IT platforms and administrative capacity but also about the practical impacts that these changes might have on benefit claimants. DWP has been entirely silent on these issues in the EM for these Regulations”.
The Committee also noted that DWP has no firm plan for achieving transition by the end of 2024, nor does it explain why providing evidence to Parliament after 10,000 notices would obstruct that objective. It said:
“In 2019, the then Secretary of State, Amber Rudd MP, undertook to gather evidence and return with it to Parliament, to seek permission to complete the migration. That undertaking has been overturned by this instrument without explaining either why that promise will not be fulfilled or offering alternative briefing to this House. … In doing this, DWP also removes any obligation to involve Parliament, particularly the House of Lords, in the decision to expand the rollout”.
The Committee then wrote to DWP to ask for further justification for the removal of the cap, but noted that the response it received:
“Does not provide any additional explanation”.
It therefore drew these regulations to the special attention of the House and concluded:
“We therefore still take the view that the House has been given insufficient detail to make an informed decision about DWP’s proposals”.
The Social Security Advisory Committee also took these regulations on formal reference. SSAC is privy to rather more detail than most parliamentarians about DWP’s plans, but its most recent report was still casting doubt on the department’s capacity to meet its ambitions, noting the lack of evidence to back up the information about DWP performance. SSAC was also concerned about the removal of the requirement to return to Parliament at the 10,000 mark. It said in its last report:
“In the absence of such a stage-gate, we are not convinced that the governance arrangements currently in place are sufficiently robust to safeguard against, or put strong mitigations in place for, those risks which have the potential to impact adversely upon up to 1.7 million households and to affect public confidence in the programme”.
Has the Minister’s department been able to satisfy SSAC any further since then?
Coming back to Parliament is not just a matter of protocol. Amber Rudd, as Secretary of State, made that commitment because of widespread concern about the impact this process could have on a very large number of people. Will the Minister tell us the latest figure for the number of people likely to be subject to managed migration? I believe that, as of December 2021, DWP estimated that some 1.7 million claims would be migrated, but that figure may have come down a touch. However, that is a lot of people.
To summarise, I have three main concerns. First, I am concerned about the way the process will affect vulnerable claimants, given that the plan to stop legacy benefits three months after a managed migration notice has been issued is going to operate like a hard stop. DWP’s suggestion that its pandemic experience means that everything will be fine does not answer the question, because the legacy benefit caseload is not the same as the caseload that came on to universal credit during the pandemic. Almost half of those people, or thereabouts, are claiming ESA, the benefit for people who are sick or disabled. Most of those are in the support group and most have been on ESA for at least five years.
Mind points out that as of last August:
“There are more than 700,000 people with mental health problems, learning disabilities and dementia receiving income-based ESA who will be affected by managed migration”.
Managed migration is therefore going to affect some of the most vulnerable claimants, including many who will really struggle to deal with this process without support. Both SSAC and the Work and Pensions Select Committee have raised concerns about the impact of managed migration on vulnerable claimants. I understand that DWP’s own research highlights similar risks.
DWP says, “Don’t worry, we will support vulnerable claimants through the managed migration process”, but the Minister will be aware that charities in this field are not confident that DWP is always good at being able to identify and support all the vulnerable claimants. CPAG research found that staff do not systematically ask if claimants with a mental health problem require any reasonable adjustments to their service, contrary to the department’s own guidance. We know from some of the terrible cases that hit the newspapers this does not always work the way that it should.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for bringing forward this regret Motion, which highlights important issues arising from the continued managed migration from legacy benefits to universal credit, and I pay tribute to her detailed knowledge in this area. As she said, the Government removed the need for the DWP to return to Parliament after 10,000 claimants had been migrated to universal credit from legacy benefits without a full evaluation of the programme so far.
In supporting her Motion, I will raise three important concerns: the lack of safeguards for vulnerable claimants, as we have heard; transitional protection, given the evidence of adverse impact of technical issues on claimants; and lack of scrutiny by Parliament, removing the opportunity for MPs and Peers to challenge and question the process so far or to introduce any legislative changes thought necessary.
First, the impact on vulnerable people can be severe. Fifty per cent of claimants of legacy benefits are on employment support allowance, which is a benefit for people who have an illness or disability that prevents them working. The process of claiming universal credit is difficult but for these people it presents a major challenge. The DWP plans to stop payment of legacy benefits to those who do not comply after three months; this is a significant sanction and could cause major distress, particularly to the most vulnerable claimants. The Government have removed the cap without publishing an evaluation. It seems essential that managed migration should be halted until an evaluation has been published.
Secondly, transitional protection is available only to those households that are migrated. There is evidence of the adverse impact of a number of technical issues on certain groups of claimants. For example, claimants will be better off if migrated after the annual uprating and worse off if migrated before. That is unfair and inequitable. People transferring from temporary to mainstream accommodation will have the housing cost element added to their universal credit. That will erode any transitional protection they may receive.
Carers, of all people, who give so much to our communities and who are entitled to the limited capability for work-related activity, will lose out on transitional protection, as the LCRWA full amount means that transitional protection is eroded by this element. Transitional protection comes to an end when joint claimants separate as a couple, even when a partner has died or left as the result of an abusive relationship. A full evaluation would enable these important issues to be reviewed and, where necessary, action to be taken to strengthen transitional protection. No claimant should be worse off at the point of transfer and vulnerable claimants need to be protected from the consequences of not coping with claims.
Thirdly, there is a lack of accountability to Parliament. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee points out, insufficient detail has been provided for there to be confidence in the DWP’s capacity to carry out the full migration without detriment to claimants. The managed migration to universal credit is an enormous project. The volume of claimants alone is a cause of concern, in that failure to deliver competently could cause widespread distress and hardship to those claimants.
Of the 2.6 million people still on legacy benefits, up to half are vulnerable long-term claimants such as the sick or disabled. The DWP needs to provide stronger evidence of its competence to communicate with the most vulnerable claimants and of its capacity to transfer their claims without disruption to those payments. Parliament should not be excluded from this major project, the impact of which on the poorest and most disadvantaged people may be very serious. It is essential for MPs and Peers to exercise full scrutiny and accountability and that they are kept in full touch as the project is rolled out. We support the Motion.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, the Minister told the House on 17 October that, as of February 2022, 5.18 million working-age adults, or 12.7% of the GB working-age population, were receiving out-of-work benefits. She explained that the largest categories were universal credit “out-of-work” or those with “no work-related requirements”, but can she inform the House how many are claiming the legacy employment and support allowance? Presumably, they would all be migrated as part of “move to UC”.
She also said that the DWP is trying to reduce the flow into unemployment and inactivity through prevention and retention work by supporting disabled people and people with long-term health conditions. Will the migration of people currently claiming legacy employment and support allowance into universal credit mean these claimants receive more attention from work coaches, with the aim of their being better enabled to work? This is not about being punitive, but ensuring that no one is simply parked on benefits when their well-being and sense of purpose would be greatly boosted by working or increasing their hours. This is obviously even more important when there are so many vacancies.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this important regret Motion, which she introduced with her usual power and precision. All I can do is reinforce some of the points she and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, made emphasising how much this matters for both the well-being of claimants, particularly those in vulnerable circumstances, and transparency and accountability to Parliament.
I have yet to see a convincing justification for the removal of the stage gate, which was introduced to assuage concern raised in both Houses. Two reasons were given by the then Secretary of State in a letter to the chair of the Work and Pensions Committee in May: first, that early lessons and observations were captured during the truncated pilot in Harrogate. We have not been told what those lessons were and, curiously, in oral evidence to the committee in June, the next month, the same Secretary of State said:
“We learned a bit in Harrogate, but not a lot. The main thing we learned in Harrogate is not to do it the way it was done in Harrogate.”
That is all the more reason, one would have thought, for maintaining the piloting approach that Parliament was promised. But, no, apparently UC’s resilience during the pandemic means that a pilot is no longer needed. As my noble friend pointed out, that was a very different exercise involving a very different group of people, almost certainly far fewer in vulnerable circumstances. Instead of the pilot, as we have heard, we have what is called the discovery phase—which sounds so appealing, like a mystery cruise, but has actually reassured no one, particularly the SLSC and SSAC, never mind external stakeholders.
Although ultimately SSAC drew back from recommending that the stage gate be retained, it made clear its concerns at its abolition. Among the points it made was the need to monitor the impact of the declining ratio of staff to claimants during the discovery phase and to publish before the Summer Recess the criteria for scaling up and moving on to the next phase of implementation, yet, to my knowledge, they have still not been published. Why not? Will the Minister give an undertaking today to do so, and to ensure that the declining staff/claimant ratio is monitored?
These and other issues, as we have heard, stem from a concern about the risk to claimants of the whole exercise. When the original regulations were considered, the view was put strongly by SLSC and SSAC that the balance of risk lay too heavily on the claimant. This was why CPAG, of which I am honorary president—I am grateful for its full briefing—Z2K and disability organisations called for the automatic transfer of migrated claimants, rather than requiring them to make a new claim. I never saw a plausible reason for rejecting that idea, but clearly it will not happen. As my noble friend asked, could the department at least consider the suspension of an existing claim rather than its termination in cases where a new claim is not made in the required period—not least because of the implications for transitional protection?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for raising this Motion, and noble Lords for their contributions. I would also like to thank representatives of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and members of the Social Security Advisory Committee for their detailed scrutiny of these regulations and for reports relating to their assessment of the impact of these regulations. We have continued ongoing dialogue with SSAC. From the meeting we had with the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, we were able to confirm to her that we were in a much better place with SSAC and the committee.
I will endeavour to answer all the questions, because I want to, but I am sure that there will be some things that I have to write about. I ask noble Lords to allow me to do that. Because of the technical nature and depth of the questioning, it is very important that I get those things right. I should also say that we had a pre-brief meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and I am happy to put on record that after this debate, however it transpires, we are prepared to have further meetings so that people can raise points which we can learn from as we go on. I hope that demonstrates that we wish to get this right and be transparent.
The Universal Credit (Transitional Provision) Amendment Regulations 2022, laid on 4 July, came into force on 25 July 2022. These regulations build on insights from the previous Harrogate pilot and from the pandemic and improve the existing legislative framework so that it better supports the DWP’s revised strategy, published in April 2022, Completing the Move to Universal Credit. I can confirm that the strategy is to migrate all legacy benefit claimants into a single, streamlined and simplified benefit system by the end of 2024.
The Motion tabled today by the noble Baroness is driven not by criticisms of the technical provisions and amendments within the regulations; these make needed improvements to legislation that sets out how claimants should be migrated to UC and protections they receive in doing so. They will also remove unnecessary complexities that benefit neither the claimant nor the taxpayer or provisions that do not reflect our policy intent. The concerns are instead focused on the removal of a statutory limit on the number of claimants, in the belief that this risks a lack of oversight of DWP’s progress and transparency about the nature of our plans for migration. These reflect concerns raised by the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Secondary Legislative Scrutiny Committee, and whilst I am sympathetic to their origins, I can assure the House that they are misfounded.
First, moving to universal credit is a good thing for claimants. Overall, we estimate that most people are better off under UC. We estimate that 55% of all legacy claimants will have a higher entitlement under UC, relative to legacy benefits; around 10% of legacy claimants will see no changes; and 35% will have a lower entitlement. That 35% who are not better off will be considered for an assessment for transitional protection to support that move over. Once they are moved over, they take advantage from a more dynamic system of support that focuses on work, incentives and earnings.
However, despite these advantages, the startling fact is that those who could benefit most—those still to migrate over—either are not aware or do not share this opinion of universal credit. Internal work looking at claimants’ attitudes suggests that there is a hesitancy towards moving to universal credit as there is concern that they will not be better off.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Just to clarify, nobody who has raised the question of uprating has asked the Minister to comment on the amount by which benefits will be or should be uprated. On the assumption that every year there is some uprating, the value of transitional protection will be different before the next financial year or after, so if somebody moves before, they will be worse off than if they move after. The questions are, first, whatever those rates are, will the Government do anything about that? Secondly, will the department warn a claimant who could choose to migrate either side of the line that they will be worse off if they go this side of the line?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The answer to that question is that I will need to write to the noble Baroness. She raised it in our meeting and I have asked my officials to prepare me a written answer so that I get it correct. I will write to the noble Baroness and place a copy in the Library.
All noble Lords who have taken part today have asked a number of justifiable and understandable questions. I will make sure with my officials that they are all answered in a subsequent letter. I thank all noble Lords who spoke whose questions enable us to clarify in more detail. Be reassured that the Government are fully aware of the concerns over the scrutiny of managed migration. We believe that managed migration to UC is the right step for claimants and that this is the right time. We believe we know how to protect claimants and are learning from the discovery phase. Given my response, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Motion to Regret.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lord who have spoken tonight and thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for making some important points about the position of vulnerable claimants and asking some good questions. I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for a powerful speech illustrating the range of issues that will have to be considered very carefully over the weeks and months ahead. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for raising the questions he did and to the Minister for answering them.
Given the lateness of the hour and the business ahead of the House, I will not respond at great length, but I want to say a couple of things. First, the Minister said that my Motion was “mis-founded” because universal credit is good for claimants, so they should be encouraged to move across, and they do not want to do anything that gets in the way of that. She is right that many people will be better off on universal credit, but others will not. For those who will be worse off, it is small comfort that someone else will be better off. It is incredibly important that those who will be worse off, and especially the significant numbers who are vulnerable, are given appropriate support, that their needs are properly attended to and they are not simply left behind, as she said, when others are moved across.
Secondly, she is right that a number of people are worried about universal credit, but not just on the grounds of media comment. The experience of some universal credit claimants has not been good: waiting a long time for benefits, complicated processes, things that they did not understand. I know, just from the charities and churches that I have spoken to, that the experience has not always been straightforward. There are good reasons for people to be concerned.
There are a number of questions here. The Minister is right: she said the Government wanted to change the regulations because the new approach better fits with their strategy and the old approach placed some regulatory constraint. That was the point: the point was to place some constraint. That is why the Secretary of State did it; that is what it was for; and that is what the Government have simply abandoned.
The Minister has said several times that she will update Parliament at the appropriate stages. The fact is, once these regulations go through, there is nothing to require her to come to the Floor of this House and say anything. The only reason she is here tonight is because I tabled a Motion against these regulations, so once they go through, the department will have complete freedom to whatever it wishes. I am really grateful for the time and the detailed responses she has given, but will she please commit to going through Hansard with some care? I think she will find when she does that there were questions that were not answered, or not answered fully. Secondly, will she please look for opportunities to engage this House and not simply the Work and Pensions Select Committee, so that we, as well as the other place, can properly have our say?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I think I have emphasised the value of regular meetings, updating people and giving them the opportunity to advise us of things they are worried about and things that have gone wrong. I have given my word here. I know our Secretary of State—
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, saves the best line till last. I have no doubt that we want to take people with us; we want to know what does not work, and we want to amend it. I give noble Lords my word and the Government’s word that we will have that interface.
The point the noble Baroness raises about the people who will be better off and those who will not—they will not be any worse off with transitional protection—is a very fair one. These are the sort of things that people talk to each other about and get very worried about, so I will take that back and try to give a more definitive answer than I have given, if that is acceptable to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The Minister keeps talking as if transitional protection is the answer. As noble Lords have pointed out, many people will not get it or will not get it for very long, and there is the whole question of the inflation uprating. It is worrying for people: if they know what is going to happen, they know that transitional protection may not last long at all. So, please do not talk as if that is the answer.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I have no intention of talking as if that is the answer and nothing will be wrong after that. I understand that it has a fixed life. Our job is to work with these people, and I understand the vulnerabilities. I understand the barriers people face when work coaches are trying to find them extra hours they can do, taking into account the things that are stopping them now. The relationship with their work coach will be invaluable. There is nothing in a work coach’s job description that says they must say, “You’ve just got to do this”. I hope that the relationship with the work coach will make a huge difference, and that they will go to their superiors when there are real issues that cannot be overcome through those channels.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answers. There are still some outstanding questions, and I remain very worried about the impact on people who are utterly dependent on the benefits they get to keep body and soul together. I very much hope that we will have opportunities to discuss this. However, I have reached the limit of what I can do about these regulations, and voting on this Motion would not change them. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Final Report
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. Last Thursday, the report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse was published. It concludes seven years of investigation into institutional failure across England and Wales to protect and safeguard children from child sexual abuse.
I want to thank the chair of the inquiry, Professor Alexis Jay, and her whole team for their fearless dedication and commitment in uncovering generations of horrendous societal, professional and institutional failings. I have written to Professor Jay and want to meet with her in the coming weeks to discuss her findings.
Above all, I want to extend my profound gratitude to the thousands of victims and survivors who have come forward to share their testimonies and experiences with the inquiry. That took immense courage. We will honour that courage by keeping their voices front and centre in everything we do and in overseeing a radical improvement in how this crime is dealt with and prevented. The whole House will be deeply moved by the reasons that victims and survivors gave for wanting to share their stories. They wanted their experiences to be acknowledged, to be listened to and to be taken seriously; they wanted to protect other children from suffering as they have suffered. Yet they also wanted not to be defined by this experience and to find, as one survivor put it, “life after abuse”. Madam Deputy Speaker, they are heroic.
Nothing—nothing—is more wicked than hurting a child, and there is no worse dereliction of duty than failing to protect a child. The report reveals horrific abuse of children. It makes for devastating and distressing reading. It finds that organisations have put their reputations ahead of protecting vulnerable children—either turning a blind eye or actively covering up abuse. That is inexcusable.
I am a father of three children and this report has made for very difficult reading. I cannot imagine the pain that victims have been through. Madam Deputy Speaker, I say this on behalf of the Government and all Governments who came before: to all the victims who have suffered this horrendous abuse, I am truly sorry.
The inquiry heard from more than 7,300 victims and survivors. It investigated abuse over not only the last seven years but several decades. The report makes a wide range of recommendations, including greater accountability, increased reporting, better redress for victims, an increased focus on bringing the perpetrators of these abhorrent acts to justice, and a stronger voice from government on this issue. The Government will take all these recommendations, and the insights provided by brave survivors, seriously.
Getting this right will mean everyone redoubling their efforts and working more closely together—all of government, the police, the health and care system, local authorities, schools, and all other interested parties. I will convene meetings with Ministers across Whitehall to drive that change. Our new child protection ministerial group, set up following the care review, will champion children’s safety at every level and provide the leadership to oversee vital reforms across children’s social care. Several government departments have been core participants in the inquiry, and we have been working to respond in real time to recommendations already made during the course of the inquiry.
The actions that we have taken include the Government’s tackling child sexual abuse strategy, published in January last year; driving initiatives to increase reporting of this too often hidden crime, including awareness-raising campaigns, and to improve the confidence and capabilities of frontline professionals to identify and respond to child sexual abuse; ensuring that education and safeguarding professionals are better equipped and supported in identifying harmful sexual behaviours and protecting children from peer-on-peer abuse and harm; targeting offenders by investing in the National Crime Agency, GCHQ and new technology, and by giving the police stronger powers; and providing better support to victims—committing to a new Victims Bill and increased funding for specialised support services.
The conclusion of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse marks the end of a vital period of reflection and learning. It must also mark the start of the next chapter in how society confronts and defeats this evil. Nothing must be allowed to get in the way, be it inertia, misplaced cultural sensitivities, indifference, self-interest or cowardice from those whose job it is to protect children.
In fact, it is the job of every adult to do all they can to protect children. Anything less is a profound moral failing, let alone a professional or institutional failing. Walking by on the other side is never acceptable. Would-be abusers need to know that they will be caught and punished. Victims need to know that it is never their fault and that they will be heard and protected.
I have laid a copy of the inquiry’s report in Parliament. It is only right that the Government now take time to carefully consider its findings and recommendations in full. We will respond comprehensively and in line with the inquiry’s deadline, but let me make a promise now: I will use all available levers to protect our children and right the wrongs exposed by the inquiry’s findings. I will do all in my power to improve how law enforcement and the criminal justice system respond to child sexual abuse. I will work with my ministerial colleagues and across party lines to hold organisations to account, bring perpetrators to justice, and support victims and survivors with compassion and total care.
Where we can act more quickly, we will. That is why we have already announced that, through the support for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse fund, we are allocating up to £4.5 million over three years to seven organisations to support victims and survivors. The fund is only the start in addressing the inquiry’s recommendations but it is another step towards ensuring that we are providing vital support for children and young people who have experienced sexual abuse, adult survivors, and parents and carers of victims. It is also just one part of the more than £60 million a year that the Home Office is investing in tackling this crime.
Child sexual abuse is a terrible but preventable crime, and we must prevent it. We will do so with the recommendations of this inquiry in front of us and the words of heroic survivors ringing in our ears. I commend this Statement to the House.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I join him in paying tribute to the 7,300 victims and survivors who gave testimony to the inquiry, and who have shown great bravery and strength in telling their stories; but there will be many thousands of other victims who did not feel able to come forward. I hope they too will feel that this report is a substantial and serious attempt to understand the extent of institutional failure to protect children over many decades.
This report, seven years in the making, is of immense importance. It offers practical solutions and a solid, rational oversight of a crime that is alternately ignored or sucked into conspiracy theories, which we see through organisations such as QAnon. The report shows the true banality of evil, and it is all the more powerful for that; I pay tribute to Professor Jay for producing it.
This is a report about one of the worst imaginable crimes—about the sexual abuse and exploitation of children and the institutional cover-ups when the abuse came to light. These institutions were there to protect children but instead they acted to protect their own institutional reputations.
The report raises concerns about current child protection arrangements. First, it refers to the explosion in online-facilitated child sexual abuse, including the grooming and rape of children and babies. The Home Secretary did not mention this in his Statement, but can the Minister confirm that the online harms Bill will complete its passage through the Commons next week and be accelerated straight to the House of Lords? Can the Minister also confirm that the National Crime Agency will not have to make the 20% staff cuts which it has been asked to draw up in the recent past?
Secondly, the report says that
“significant reductions in funding of public services”
after 2010 is one of the key factors that has had
“a deleterious impact on responses to child sexual abuse.”
Does the Minister accept the damage done by the scale of the cuts in child protection? What can he say about protecting our existing arrangements in the forthcoming spending review?
Thirdly, the report is clear that organisations still do not take child protection seriously enough. What is the Home Office’s position on a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse? The Labour Party has been calling for it since 2014, and it is worth noting that former Prime Minister Theresa May, who initiated this report, supported this key recommendation of the report.
Fourthly, the report is clear about the failings in the criminal justice system. The charge rate on child sexual abuse has dropped from 32% in 2015 to 12% last year. There are many other examples of failures in the criminal justice system too, but surely child sexual abuse should be the top priority.
Fifthly, the Home Office has responsibility for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, yet the independent inspectorate found just last week that they were being placed into unsuitable hotels where the staff did not even have DBS checks, and hundreds of children have gone missing. What action have the Government taken since the Minister saw those reports over the weekend?
This report is clear about the systemic failures, past and present. We in the Labour Party have been part of the problem. My right honourable friend Yvette Cooper apologised on behalf of the Labour Party for its part in that failure. Too often, there has been a deference to power, which has overridden a duty of care.
I spoke about the banality of evil. Noble Lords will know that I sit as a magistrate in London. Magistrates would not normally deal with these types of offences but several times in my experience as a magistrate in family courts, youth courts and adult courts, I have had witnesses and defendants make very serious child sex-related accusations when we were dealing with far lesser charges in the court process. We as a court system need to be alert to people reaching out for help when they are in the court system. We owe it to the thousands of survivors who have spoken out.
I have two final points to make. The first and very important point is that this is not a historical problem; it is happening today. My question to the Minister is: what is being done to ensure that children know where and how to report abuse? Secondly, I repeat a point made by many Members in the other place: can the Minister give an undertaking that there will be regular reports to Parliament on how the Government are implementing the recommendations in the report?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. This seven-year Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse sheds light on extraordinary and appalling institutional failings. I want to thank the right honourable Theresa May MP for establishing this inquiry in the first place, as well as Professor Alexis Jay, the chair, and her panel, and, most of all, the survivors and victims who selflessly came forward because they wanted to prevent what had happened to them happening to anyone else.
This is a catalogue of failure to protect children, failure to listen to children and failure to believe children. There must be a change of culture, both in society and in those institutions which put their reputations before protecting children. We on these Benches are also truly sorry. All Governments have failed these survivors and victims, along with the police, health and social services, and local authorities. We have all let down the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse.
The physical and emotional damage these children have suffered has led to a lifetime of suffering. The Home Secretary said that the perpetrators will be “caught and punished” and that “all available levers” in his power, including the police and criminal justice system will be used to bring offenders to justice. Can I ask the Minister how that will be brought about when there is a lack of police resources, the police are already overstretched and the Crown Prosecution Service does not have enough lawyers? The proportion of criminal cases overall resulting in prosecution is falling and there are serious backlogs in the courts. Will the Government increase the resources to the criminal justice system, for example, those available to the police and Crown Prosecution Service? Will the Government ask those institutions to prioritise child sexual abuse cases?
It is right that we should say sorry to the victims and survivors, but we should also not forget those falsely accused whose lives and reputations were seriously damaged as the police lurched from not doing enough to the opposite extreme. Those making false allegations damaged genuine victims as well as those they wrongly accused. Every victim must be protected, cared for and believed while the police engage in an objective search for the truth.
I shall mention three specific issues. First, will the Government introduce an effective statutory duty to report child sexual abuse?
Secondly, when it comes to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, as has already been said, they are being placed in inappropriate accommodation in hotels where those looking after them have not been DBS checked. More than 100 have gone missing. In going missing, they are vulnerable to sexual abuse. In the Home Secretary’s Statement, he said that
“there is no worse dereliction of duty than failing to protect a child”,
but the Home Office has not been protecting these children by allowing them to go missing. What are the Government doing to ensure that this is stopped?
Thirdly, on prosecutions, the Home Secretary talked about the number of convictions for possession of indecent images of children increasing by 39%. But what about the number of children being rescued from abuse and the children in those indecent images? What about the prosecutions of those producing the images, not just those in possession of them?
There were 2 million pages of evidence and 107 recommendations. It will take time to fully process and action all those recommendations. That must not be lost in the current political turmoil. Child sexual exploitation is endemic and increasing. As the report says:
“this is not just a national crisis, but a global one.”
Urgent action is needed to reverse the increasing numbers of children being abused. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will regularly update the House and not wait until all the recommendations have been addressed?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for a large number of questions. I will do my best to get to all of them in the time available.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that of course there are many thousands of other victims. We should be thinking about those who were unable, for whatever reason, to come forward, as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, there were an enormous number of submissions. Once again, I commend those who did and their bravery.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me about the Online Safety Bill. I cannot confirm that it will be given expedited progress through this House. However, as the noble Lord noted, I believe it is on Report in the other place next week. We will be working with DCMS, particularly in light of this report.
In terms of cuts to the NCA, I do not know how it will be managing its budget. What I can say is that the Government have committed to a £20 million per annum uplift to that budget, which is going through. Whether that impacts staff numbers I cannot really say. I apologise for not having that information to hand. When we do, I am sure we will be able to come back to the House with it.
The noble Lord also asked me to accept the damage done by cuts. I am afraid I am going to refer back to an answer I gave in a debate last Thursday. The world has changed, and a lot of these crimes have developed as a result of the changes we were just discussing regarding the online world, so the responses will have to change. It would be inappropriate of me to use hindsight to say how the world might have been had things been done in a different way, given that the world has changed enormously. I cannot do that.
A number of questions were asked about the mandatory duty. I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, called it a statutory duty. This is going to be looked at. The Government have committed to look at all the various remaining recommendations. I remind noble Lords that 107 recommendations were made and 87 have been already actioned because they came out before the publication of the final report. The Government have committed to look at the remaining 20 and respond to them all within the six-month period. That is what we will be doing.
I understand the arguments for mandatory reporting. The inquiry’s report powerfully draws out the systemic failures of institutions to treat child sexual abuse seriously, as both noble Lords have noted, and to properly report allegations of child sexual abuse. As I have just said, we are committed to supporting front-line professionals working with children and to making sure they feel confident and equipped with the right resources and training to identify and respond to concerns or cases of child sexual abuse.
I could go on about this. There is one little caveat I would like to make. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, suggested that the Labour Party was calling for this in 2014. In 2016, there was a consultation on mandatory reporting; I do not know if he remembers that. The evidence was very mixed. There were plenty of principled reasons from high-profile organisations which have a vested interest in this particular subject, which were not necessarily in favour of it. All these things have to be considered, and I am very happy to share those statistics with him afterwards if he would like.
Both noble Lords asked me about the criminal justice system and the various numbers. Again, there were calls for more money which obviously I am unable to answer. However, I can answer a little regarding the numbers of prosecutions and offences committed. I think my right honourable friend the Home Secretary referred to this in his speech. There were 103,496 child offences recorded by the police in the year to March 2022. It is a horrific number and a 16% increase on the previous year to March 2021.
However, there has been an increase, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, noted, in the number of convictions for indecent images. That number has increased by 39%. It is still a small number; I acknowledge that it is too small. I cannot say what has been happening to the victims of those images. I would like to be able to give him more information. I will investigate and come back to him if I can. I could go on in terms of the numbers, but, frankly, it is pretty horrible, and I think we should move on.
A question on unaccompanied asylum seekers was asked of me. On average, unaccompanied children seeking asylum are moved to long-term care within 15 days of arriving in a hotel. Obviously, we know that more needs to be done. That is why we are working closely with local authorities to increase the number of placements available and offer councils £6,000 for every child they can provide accommodation for. Any child going missing is obviously extremely serious and we work around the clock with the police and local authorities to urgently locate them and ensure that they are safe.
There is a lot of work being done around public awareness already, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred. I am sure I will have an opportunity to go into more detail on precisely what that work is, but he should rest assured that it is happening. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary committed to action all the remaining recommendations, or at least to come back with considered responses to them within the six months mandated by the inquiry. I think I have answered most of the questions. I apologise if I have not, but I shall leave it there.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, the problem is that this is happening today, tonight and tomorrow morning. The Government must decide which of the 107 recommendations should have priority. There can be a debate about this, but one that needs urgent attention is legislation to deal with mandatory reporting. The first question is: on whom should such a duty be imposed? Obviously, it should be institutions responsible for the care of children, as well as individuals in positions of trust. But we also have to be careful that, in our haste, we do not impose a duty on victims to report other victims. They may find it impossible to report their own stories, so why should they be in a position where they have to report someone else’s? In some institutions, it must be perfectly obvious to victims that there are other victims of the same person.
We need to be careful about legislation. It is not an offence of obstructing the police for me not to answer a question; it is an offence to lie. If we are going to amend that law, we need to be clear about how we will do so. Section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 is almost impossible to understand. I beg whoever is responsible for legislation not to simply say, “Well, we’ve got a good Act about that.” It is not a good Act; it is very difficult to follow, and it is confused in any event because it did not follow the Law Commission’s recommendations. So can we legislate urgently to deal with these issues but also be careful about how we do so?
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, I am sure that those of us who sit on this Bench, along with—
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Sorry, I thought it was me.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for that eloquent explanation of what I have just tried to explain, perhaps less eloquently, to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. The previous consultation on this, which reported in 2018, also illustrates a little of what the noble and Lord described. Some 51% of respondents felt that introducing a duty to act would have negative consequences, 68% felt that mandatory reporting would have an adverse impact and 85% felt that it would not ensure that appropriate action was taken. This included people like the Children’s Commissioner and the NSPCC, who know what they are talking about. Some of the reasons given in the report—these go very much to what the noble and learned Lord said—were that it could
“dissuade victims from disclosing incidents of abuse and reduce ‘safe spaces’ for children.”
It could also have
“an adverse impact on the child protection system … e.g., by impacting the recruitment and retention of staff”.
Also,
“Increased reporting may divert attention from the most serious … cases”.
So many other reasons were given, illustrating the complexity of this subject and the care with which it needs to be looked at. So I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, those of us who sit on this Bench, along with all on other Benches in your Lordships’ House, are deeply saddened and ashamed by the harm and suffering experienced by victims and survivors of abuse. I salute the courage of survivors in coming forward to share their stories. We are determined to learn from the mistakes of the past and make the Church as safe a place as possible. That is why we welcome this final report and are already embracing its various recommendations with, for example, the Church of England’s redress board, which has a victims and survivors working group. In this respect, what exactly is the Government’s intention? Is it their preference to support institutions, including the Church, in establishing individual redress schemes? Or is it their intention to create a new overarching external regulatory body in this respect?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The right reverend Prelate obviously makes some good points. I will outline what the Government are doing to ensure that all sectors and leaders of society are working together to tackle child sexual abuse. In his opening speech in the other place, the Home Secretary comprehensively outlined the cross-party and multiagency dimension to all of this. We are transforming the way that local safeguarding agencies work together to ensure a more effective response in safeguarding children.
The Children and Social Work Act 2017 introduced significant reforms, requiring local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and chief officers of police to form multiagency safeguarding partnerships. All of the new partnerships were in place by September 2019, but we know that there are still improvements to be made to the quality and consistency of the local partnerships. We are working with local partners to understand and address those challenges in ensuring effective independent scrutiny, engaging with schools and other relevant agencies and distributing funding.
I reiterate that the Government are firmly committed to supporting all institutions that play a role in safeguarding children to develop robust safeguarding strategies that are carefully monitored, ensuring the safety and protection of children, regardless of where they live and spend their time.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I worked with the right honourable Member for Maidenhead in setting up this inquiry. At the time, plenty of people said it should not have been launched: they said it was all in the past and that there was no point in raking it all up again. Then they said that the terms of reference were too broad and that it would never end. I am pleased to say that they were wrong on all counts.
I congratulate Professor Alexis Jay on her brilliant stewardship of this inquiry and on her hard-hitting report. As she did in Rotherham, she has revealed truths that mean we can never look at society in the same way again. There is too much to say here, but I will cite a couple of important statistics in the report that have not been mentioned. In any year group of 200 children, it is estimated that 10 boys and more than 30 girls will experience sexual abuse before the age of 16. The number of sexual abuse offences recorded by the police where the victim was a child under the age of four has risen by 45% in recent years. So, as noble Lords have said, this is not in the past; it is very much in the present, and it will continue to wreck lives if we do not do something to stop it.
Having worked on the inquiry’s Truth Project, I have listened to the accounts of victims and survivors. Although everyone’s experience is different, the damage is always the same: families torn apart, lives forced in a different direction and feelings of shame, anger and hurt. We should thank all those who came forward to ensure that what happened to them does not happen to future generations. Thanks to Professor Jay, it does not have to; she has given us the answers.
As I said, it is a brilliant report, but it can only ever be as good as the action that flows from it. So I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement, which reflects the deeper understanding that we now have of this issue. But could he assure the House once more that the Government will look quickly and seriously at its recommendations and ensure that all the relevant departments across government play their part in implementing them? As we saw from the interim report, if they do not work together, we cannot drive through the change that is very much needed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her remarks and commend her for her efforts when she was working with the right honourable Member for Maidenhead. I am grateful for the opportunity to commend the former Prime Minister for her extraordinary work on this.
Those statistics are genuinely appalling, particularly when they are put in those terms. I have read them as percentages, which perhaps seem rather dry, but to give numbers is harrowing. The Government have made it clear that they are determined to work across agencies and across departments; that work will be ongoing, and all relevant departments will be involved in it.
Something the Home Secretary said bears repeating: when asked about a Minister for children, he said:
“We all … have to be Ministers for children”.
I think he is right.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is disappointing that recommendation 13, on mandatory reporting, is not a pure system; it is a bit of a hotchpotch of mandatory reporting systems. Will the Government undertake to compare recommendation 13 to successful models of mandatory reporting elsewhere in the world, including Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Ireland and the USA? In particular, will they compare the views of public bodies before it was introduced and after? In each of those countries, there has been a significant gain in confidence in the regulated bodies that have to report.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for those suggestions. I will happily take them back to the department and Home Secretary, and strongly recommend that he investigates them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Statement made in the other place says, in summary:
“Victims need to know … that they will be heard and protected.”
I will pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who focused on the issues of the justice system. Abusers will of course seek out the most vulnerable: those who are the most excluded from society, including young people who may not be in education, employment or training; asylum-seeking children, as many noble Lords have identified; and those from particularly economically and socially disadvantaged communities. For them to be genuinely heard and to be able to talk to a sympathetic ear, resources will be needed in places such as schools and with their GPs and social workers—indeed, if one can imagine it, with immigration officers and border staff. Will the Minister acknowledge that there needs to be adequate resources in all those institutions where vulnerable children will encounter potentially responsible adults? The resources need to be there to enable those institutions to react appropriately.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Of course, I acknowledge that resources need to be adequate.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, do I have the permission of the House to speak, because I was not here for the earlier Statement?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
It is normal to be here at the outset, so I regret that, on this occasion—
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
I gave evidence to the inquiry, and I have had very personal experiences of all this, so may I speak?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Yes, on this occasion, we will make one exception.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
Thank you.
I did not applaud the remit of the inquiry; it was much too broad. We had terrible problems with the chair, with whom we were, at last, third time lucky. The inquiry should not have been set up by the Home Office. In my days, it would have been set up by the health department, and now it should be by the education department—if it were, it would have been more focused, more relevant and more specific. It was far too broad.
I do not agree with all the recommendations, but I do agree with mandatory reporting. I will explain why very quickly. I used to be a chair of the juvenile court. I was a psychiatric social worker, but my first job was working with the Inner London Education Authority with a special boarding school, where I realised that the headmaster was abusing the children, if not also the parents. This was the most appalling horror to me, a virtuous person of 24. I reported it to my boss, who said, “If you complain about these sorts of things, they will not allow social workers at residential schools. You must not be a politician, Virginia; you’re a social worker”.
I then went and spoke to a very senior member of the Inner London Education Authority, a Labour member who was a friend of my family—I broke my professional line—and told her about this simply appalling man who was abusing children and the institution. She basically did nothing. Of course, what they did is what is reported in the report: they wrote him a good reference and he went off to Tunbridge Wells. I immediately wrote about this to my friend Patrick Mayhew—then the MP—to warn him, “If you ever hear anything about him at all, you must jump immediately”. Mr Bertram went off to Canada.
I say this because I think that few noble Lords in this Chamber will understand how horrific it is to think that you are working with a virtuous institution and gradually realise that the person leading it—and responsible for vulnerable children—is a perpetrator of horrendous crimes. Beyond all this, mandatory reporting would have helped me; I would have been able to say to my boss and to the local authority politician, “We have to have mandatory reporting”. So I commend Alexis Jay. She has ended up doing a very good job, but it has been quite a long journey getting there. Thank you for letting me speak.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am pleased that we did. I thank my noble friend for her unusual perspective on this subject. I have absolutely no doubt that her personal experiences were replicated all too often in the past. Regarding mandatory reporting, I certainly appreciate her perspective and will take that back. As I have tried to explain, it is a complex subject. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, explained, it requires careful thought, but my noble friend’s remarks are noted.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I add my warmth to the report that Professor Jay has produced. It has taken a long time and cost a lot of money. I am speaking for the victims; in my role as Victims’ Commissioner, I gave evidence three times. There are excellent recommendations. While I know that there are over 100 recommendations, and that the Government must respond within six months, six months is a long time for victims and survivors to wait for something to change for them.
I have challenged the Government in my role as Victims’ Commissioner about the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which has had a very tight budget. I am conscious that the compensation process for these victims and survivors is going to be very lengthy, very bureaucratic and will put them off claiming the compensation they duly deserve. For example, I had to fight in my role to get £20 for a victim who had to print off papers; there was a question mark about whether they would pay £20 for ink. So my concern is that, while it might seem very simple that the Government will do this and that, the monetary value given to organisations is not enough to support the services that these victims and survivors need. I would like a fast target on criminal injuries compensation, because these people have waited long enough to have their voices listened to and to be given the better, healthier lifestyle they truly deserve.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for those very sensible remarks. The Home Secretary said earlier that six months is obviously the absolute limit to come back with answers on these matters, but if we can come back quicker, we will. I am quite sure that he meant that when he said it. Criminal compensation—or victims’ compensation, I should say—will of course be considered along with the other recommendations. I will certainly take my noble friend’s perspective back to the Home Office.
Supply and Appropriation (Adjustments) Bill
Monday 24th October 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Supply and Appropriation (Adjustments) Act 2022 View all Supply and Appropriation (Adjustments) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text
East Kent Maternity Services: Independent Investigation
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking Dr Bill Kirkup and his team for bringing together a report of harrowing events. This litany of failures makes for very difficult reading, and it marks another landmark for a further group of families fighting for justice who should not have had to do so. Forty-five babies could have survived had they received care at the nationally recognised standards. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with the bereaved families at this extremely painful time.
This is, regrettably, yet another example of women’s voices being ignored and silenced, to the extent that some were told that they were to blame for the deaths of their babies. At a time when women are at their most vulnerable, they were let down by the very people who they were relying on to keep them safe. However, this is not a one-off: East Kent is the latest in a long line of maternity scandals, including at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust and Morecambe Bay, while the upcoming review of services in Nottingham is expected to be highly critical. Dr Kirkup said that avoidable deaths happened because recommendations that had been made following reports into other scandals had not been implemented. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to this.
We know that no woman should ever have to face going into hospital to give birth, not knowing whether she and her baby will come out alive. Those who allowed this culture of neglect and what was referred to in the report as a disturbing
“lack of kindness and compassion”
to take root must be held accountable. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House how this may happen?
It is shocking that there is a pattern of avoidable harm in maternity units across the country. Half the maternity units in England are failing to meet safety standards. Pregnant women were turned away from maternity wards more than 400 times last year. One in four women are unable to get the help that they need when in labour. The Government need to fully accept all the recommendations in Dr Kirkup’s review without delay. I hope the Minister will today confirm that this is the case.
In the wake of the Ockenden review, the former Health Secretary announced additional funding for maternity services to help deliver the reform that is clearly needed. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House how that funding has been spent and how its impact will be measured? Indeed, it would be very helpful if the Minister could bring a further report to this House on progress in the improvement of maternity services.
Underpinning the issues in maternity care and across the NHS is, of course, the workforce. But more midwives are leaving the profession than are joining it and there is now a shortage of some 2,000 midwives in England alone. Can the Minister indicate where we can find the workforce plan to get the staff needed to provide good and safe care in the short, medium and long term? It is evident that the Government must provide the staff that maternity services desperately need to provide safe care across the health service.
I am sure we were all concerned to read the Care Quality Commission’s report published just two days after Dr Kirkup’s report. It also makes sobering reading. It says that maternity services in England have deteriorated to their lowest level, services are worsening and, time and again, there are issues with the leadership and culture in maternity units.
The CQC’s chief executive said that the failings were systemic in the NHS, with two in five maternity services now ranked as requiring improvement or inadequate. This is a wholly unacceptable situation. Does the Minister share the view of the regulator that the issues in maternity services are a “national challenge”?
This CQC report shows that there has been a deterioration in maternity services overall and in relation to their safety, describing progress on improvement as “slow”. The proportion of maternity services ranked as inadequate or requiring improvement is, we see, the worst it has ever been. What actions will the Government take? Will the Minister be meeting the CQC urgently to discuss its findings? How will a major change in maternity services be brought about?
All that women and their loved ones ask for is to have confidence that they and their babies will be safe. This really is not much to ask. I hope the Government will provide the means to deliver this.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I want to start from these Benches by sending my deepest sympathies to the bereaved families and to say that we admire the parents for their campaigns over many years against the dreadful treatment by the east Kent hospitals trust for more than a decade. I echo the thanks and gratitude from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, to Dr Kirkup and his team. Once again, he has risen to the challenge of providing a very clear picture of what has gone wrong at a hospital trust.
The trust failed to read the signals over an 11-year period. The Kirkup report puts this very bluntly and is exceptional in the way it uses evidence. Yes, there is the evidence of the voices of mothers and their families and the evidence from staff, but equally important is the use of data, especially the CESDI data from the Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy. In the section headed “What happened to women and babies”, paragraph 1.16 says that
“we have not found that a single clinical shortcoming explains the outcomes. Nor should the pattern of repeated poor outcomes be attributed to individual clinical error, although clearly a failure to learn in the aftermath of obvious safety incidents has contributed to this repetition.”
This short paragraph encapsulates how failings have become cultural in the trust. Paragraph 1.19 says that
“we have found that the origins of the harm we have identified and set out in this Report lie in failures of teamworking, professionalism, compassion and listening.”
It is really worrying to have the report from the CQC of a few days ago, which echoed these exact points but more broadly across maternity services in England.
As has been mentioned, there is a wider problem. We know that. The reports on Morecambe Bay, Shrewsbury, Telford and now Nottingham, where Ms Ockenden is now working, show that systemic and cultural failures, especially with the complexity of regulators, are creating real problems. There is the idea that clinical staff will allow favouritism and the opposite of growing and supporting staff, while letting things fester and not caring to drag patients into their concerns.
Can the Minister outline the timescale for the independent working group report referred to in the Statement? The creation of the group is welcome; its main remit is to advise the maternity transformation programme in England—but by when? Is the work of the group revealing that other maternity services have problems, even if we do not know how severe they are or if they are as severe as East Kent?
In the section on the actions of the regulators on page 9, at paragraph 1.50, Dr Kirkup identified that
“the Trust was faced with a bewildering array of regulatory and supervisory bodies, but the system as a whole failed to identify the shortcomings”.
It is good that it is reported that NHS England and Innovation sought to bring about improvements, but every other trust is also facing that same complexity of different regulators. Are the Government looking at the roles of regulators and how their competing demands can be streamlined to avoid this problem?
The Commons Minister said that she would review all the recommendations and provide a full response once she has had time to consider it. I think we all appreciate that the NHS has a very large workload at the moment, but can the Minister say roughly what timescale we are looking at?
One key problem in many maternity services is with the workforce, especially midwives. Although NHS England made an exceptional grant in March of £127 million as a boost for
“safer and more personalised care”,
can the Minister say—I echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, which he will not be surprised to hear—where the workforce plan is for the next decade for maternity services? A year’s extra money is not going to help with training the midwives of the future and ensuring that maternity units are professionally and adequately staffed.
Dr Kirkup also criticised NHS England for firing chairs and chief execs too frequently, indulging in a blame game that reinforced the culture happening inside East Kent. It is no longer good enough to say, once again, that this must never happen again. This is the third devastating report in under seven years, and another is now being prepared in Nottingham. What will the Government do in the next three months to ensure that further appalling practice will be uncovered and dealt with immediately?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
Dr Kirkup’s report, published last week, contains some stark and upsetting findings. As mentioned, the report examined more than 200 births in east Kent between 2009 and 2020 and found that, had care been given at nationally recognised standards, 45 babies might not have lost their lives and many more families might not have experienced such distress at what should have been a time of joy. He also found a toxic culture in the trust, with a disturbing lack of kindness and compassion, and victims’ families even blamed for their devastating losses. The report underlines that the NHS needs to be better at identifying poorly performing units and at giving care with compassion and kindness, as well as team working with a common purpose and responding to challenge with honesty. I take all the findings and areas of concern extremely seriously.
I want to thank Dr Kirkup and his team; his experience has been invaluable and I know that his approach to putting families first has been welcomed. I also know that hearing the accounts of families has been a harrowing experience at times, yet, as he said, it is difficult to imagine just how hard it was for the families as they relived some of their darkest days. I am profoundly sorry to all the families who have suffered and continue to suffer from these tragedies. I pay tribute to the families who have come forward to assist the review; it is thanks to the tireless efforts, courage and determination of families in east Kent that we have been able to shine a light on maternity failings in East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust.
Before directly addressing the recommendations, I want to put the tragic findings in the context of an improving service overall. Since 2010, stillbirths have declined by 19%, neonatal mortality over 24 weeks by 36% and maternal mortality by 17%. That is not to undermine the seriousness of the circumstances.
On the recommendations, I echo the comments already made. I know that it is top of Minister Johnson’s agenda in making sure that there are speedy, but also measured, responses. As part of that, I want to touch on some of the points made, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the use of data as part of the early warning indicators. I think we all agree that that is key to this area. This is exactly the work that the national maternity safety surveillance and concerns group was set up for: to make sure that there is methodical oversight in this area. It is in its power to recommend that people are put into the maternity safety support programme; 23 hospitals are currently in it and it is recommended that four have progressed enough to come out again, but another 10 have been identified that may need to be put into it.
It depends on how you look at it, and whether you take solace in these trusts being identified, or whether you are concerned about the number out there. Personally—I hope I echo the comments of all of us in the House—I believe it is much better that we identify them and deal with it, however uncomfortable that might be in the meantime. The lesson we have learned from these unfortunate cases, as recognised by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, is that we have seen a failure of leadership and accountability here.
I am glad to see that, in responding, the trusts have been unequivocal in accepting unreservedly the failings on their part and have apologised wholeheartedly. As we know in these times, when dealing with these situations the first thing that has to happen is recognising that the problem exists.
I will need to write to the noble Baroness about the extra investment and how that spend is being allocated. It is very much on the agenda of Minister Johnson to look at that and at the improvements that have been made.
On the shortage of midwives, the picture as I understand it right now is that we have had a stable number of midwives—around 21,500—over the last four years. Within that, we do have the target, as mentioned, to increase it by 1,200, and that is part of the £95 million investment towards this. I accept that doing that is more than a one-year plan and needs to be part of a much larger picture.
I welcome the CQC focus on this area. It is something that we all agree needs to be an area of focus; if that makes for some uncomfortable findings then so be it. It is only when we understand those areas that we can really get on and make sure that we deal with them. I hope that we are looking to move on in these areas.
The Maternity Safety Support Programme is a force for good, and I am glad to say that, in East Kent, they have been working on the improvement plan as part of the support programme, and 65 of the 67 actions have now been completed, with the final two to be completed by the end of November. That is not to be complacent: that work should have been done a lot earlier, but I am glad to see it is being worked on now.
I have tried in these answers to respond to the questions, but I will follow up in any areas where I have not. In summary, I again thank and pay tribute to those families whose tireless determination to find the trust in telling their stories has brought us to this important point. The Government will be reviewing and considering all the recommendations from the report. We will listen, learn and act to ensure that no other family has to ever experience the same pain in the future.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for being patient with me, as I am still learning the rules. I draw attention to my interests in the register. Given the continuous maternity concerns raised in this and many other reports, including by women’s groups, is it time to have a maternity commissioner? As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, mentioned, what needs to happen to ensure that we get that change? Could the answer be a maternity commissioner who is independent and who then holds the Government to account?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to say that it is clear that we have not got it right to date, as shown by the fact that these instances have come up. We are taking the right steps with the Maternity Safety Support Programme that we have put in place, and its ability to put trusts into special measures—as I say, that has already been done on 23 occasions and it is being considered for another 10. I believe we have got those early warning indicators in place now, and trusts are being held to account. At the same time, we have to be open, to make sure that we continue to look at and review this, to see whether it has sufficient teeth and, dare I say, intelligence to properly identify these areas. If it does not manage to do that, we must make sure we put in something else, in addition to what is there already.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I have had a very long interest in maternity services, and it seemed to me, on this occasion, that I could make a few comments. This report is truly remarkable. It is investigating the tragedies and failures, the lack of care, the divisive attitudes among professionals, and the lack of teamwork and much else. The report is really here partly due to the pressure of patients and the public, who wanted to bring to the attention of the Government the failures in East Kent.
I thank my noble friend for his report. The recommendations are different from the usual recommendations, in that they go much wider than just East Kent; they go across the country as a whole, and they are very important. On reading that report, has he any ideas about how to stimulate the doctors, nurses, midwives, obstetricians, managers and leaders not only in East Kent but across the country to take note of what it is saying? It very much affects not just them but parents, families, friends and childbearing women, and it is important that they have optimal care that is kinder, compassionate, more personal and safer. What action are the Government going to take, working with NHS England, because there are a lot of partners in this area of maternity? Will he ensure that the recommendations are not ignored—that they are not just put on a shelf and forgotten—and will he come back to Parliament within, say, four to six months to explain what progress has been made in implementing them in the four areas cited for action? I would very much welcome that, because I want to see this report implemented and not just put on another shelf.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her question; I know this is an area in which she has longstanding interest and expertise. She refers to embedding compassionate care and, perhaps like all of us, I am surprised to learn that, unfortunately, we may need training in this area; but I agree that it needs to be done because it is fundamental. A culture and leadership programme has been put in place, and we have set up national guardians, the idea being that everyone in every trust has the freedom to speak up. There are 800 of them as of today. I take this issue seriously and I commit—if I am here—to come back within four to six months to report to the House on the progress made, as requested.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, all too often we hear sentiments of regret and apology—“we have learnt lessons”; “it must not happen again”—and of course, in a sense, what else can you say? My noble friend’s suggestion of someone with specialist knowledge overseeing this is very helpful, but does the Minister agree that this is another area where we have to encourage people to whistle-blow? It is not a term I like much, because it suggests something which is not pleasant, but very often there are people who are alarmed and think something is wrong, but who are too frightened to speak out. If we could foster a culture where that fear is diminished and people feel able to speak out, and that they should, we might get much earlier warning.
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree, and if I may I would like to quote Dr Bill Kirkup in the report:
“Clinicians should not have to live in fear”
where “honest clinical errors” are made. That is exactly the point: we need to introduce a culture whereby people feel able to do that. He goes on to blame systemic failures in leadership, a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made, and which is very pertinent here. We are talking about honest mistakes. Everyone wants to do a good job and tries do a good job; it is where they feel that they cannot bring up and honestly discuss those issues that we have a systemic problem, so I agree that it begins and ends with the leadership.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I know nothing about health policy, Kent or the hospitals in Kent, but our grandson was born in one of the hospitals of the east Kent trust earlier in the summer. We have heard about some of the horrifying things that have happened. There is no excuse for that, but in all hospitals and such establishments there are people who, despite the problems, are doing the real job to the best of their abilities. I should simply like to put on record our gratitude to the staff involved in the birth of our grandson.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. As he rightly points out, the vast majority of workers are very diligent and good at what they do, and that should rightly be recognised. At the same time, I do not think any of us here wants to sweep under the carpet the problems that clearly exist. We need to be sure that, among the fantastic work, we are ever vigilant to root out the bad.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, a Department of Health statement on the appointment of the first ever patient safety commissioner—on which, as your Lordships’ House well knows, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was a driving force—noted that the NHS Patient Safety Strategy was published in 2019
“to create a safety learning culture across the NHS”.
The statement also noted that it had introduced a statutory duty of candour, which requires trusts to inform patients if their safety has been compromised. I think everyone in your Lordships’ House is well aware that our NHS staff are exhausted, overstretched and overworked. When I read that statement, I could not help thinking about how there are different reports, strategies and approaches coming from all kinds of directions. Can the Minister assure me that staff are being given clear leadership from the very top and a clear framework in which to work, rather than a continual barrage of directions without the resources to deliver them?
Lord Markham (Con)
I believe that staff are now being given that framework. Historically, as the report shows, they have not always been given that. Clearly, if this report is really going to lead to meaningful change, we have to make sure that the framework is adhered to going forward. That is what I believe the maternity support programme is all about.
Energy Prices Bill
Monday 24th October 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Energy Prices Act 2022 View all Energy Prices Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 59-I(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (21 Oct 2022)