House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Business Before Questions
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
We have so far electrified the Great Western main line as far as Newbury, Bristol Parkway and Chippenham, and electrification to Cardiff is progressing towards delivery by November this year.
Jessica Morden
I certainly welcome the electrification work in south Wales, although it should have gone through to Swansea, but what is the Department doing to ensure that Network Rail works closely with communities such as Magor in my constituency, which is right on the line, to ensure that where work does have a big impact on residents it listens, reacts to problems and compensates accordingly?
Andrew Jones
I cannot comment on the specifics of that community, but I will take that up with Network Rail on the hon. Lady’s behalf. As a general principle, I raise, and have raised repeatedly, with Network Rail how community engagement and communication are absolutely critical for all communities along the lines they serve.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The electrification of the main line railway through Devon and Cornwall would be massively challenging and hugely disruptive because of the geography, with a number of bridges, tunnels and steep inclines. Does the Minister share my view that the best way forward for places like Devon and Cornwall is to use bimodal trains that make use of electrification where available, but then have clean diesel engines where electrification is not possible?
Andrew Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very wise point. Electrification has always been part of the answer to improve the network, its environmental performance and its running capability, but it will not be the right answer on every single occasion. There will be occasions where electrification provides no significant journey time savings, yet has a significant capital cost. In those situations, we should seek to get the benefits via technology and the technology in the rolling stock. I agree with my hon. Friend.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), my constituents, particularly those in Lawrence Hill, one of the most challenging parts of my constituency, had to endure months of inconvenience as the electrification work was carried out. To add insult to that injury, we are not even getting electrification to Bristol Temple Meads. They have to put up with the inconvenience without the electrification. What compensation, assistance or help can the Secretary of State or the Government give to my constituents in Lawrence Hill?
Andrew Jones
The issue of compensation when we do works on either the railways or the roads is raised repeatedly, but it would simply just add to the cost of projects. I recognise that we cannot work on the roads or the rails without causing some disruption. That should be minimised. As I said to the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), we should be working to communicate and collaborate with communities. In terms of compensation, there is no plan to change any of the current arrangements, but I just remind her that the services at the end of the work will result in the best ever services from Bristol.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The Minister may be aware that the Welsh Affairs Committee reported on the cancellation of electrification to Swansea and pointed out that although Wales has 11% of the UK’s rail network it receives 1.5% of rail investment. Does the Minister not agree that that disparity needs to be addressed?
Andrew Jones
We are keen to see investment right across our network. I know the hon. Gentleman has campaigned for a variety of infrastructure investments—indeed, we had a Westminster Hall debate on this subject only a few weeks ago—but we are investing at a record level. The budget for England and Wales for control period 6, which started last month, is £48 billion. That money is being spent on upgrading, maintaining and renewing our network. As proposals come forward for inclusion within schemes, they should of course be based on merit. I look forward to working with Welsh colleagues to see what happens.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
It is extremely welcome that a scheme is now being developed for electrification to Market Harborough. Can the Minister say when further decisions will be taken about exactly when that will happen?
Andrew Jones
I cannot say exactly when without going off and checking, but I will of course do that and get back to my hon. Friend with a more detailed answer.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
An initial feasibility study carried out in partnership with Transport for the North was completed in December 2018. We are now working to assess the scheme to ensure that it can be affordable, will attract sufficient traffic and is part of the right long-term solution for the cross-Pennine rail routes. The results of that work, which we expect to receive later this year, will inform the decision about taking the scheme forward.
John Grogan
Does the Minister agree that restoring the line would have the advantage of providing an important new freight link across the Pennines, as well as a passenger link? Will he agree to publish the feasibility study, so that Network Rail’s £800 million cost estimate can be scrutinised and, probably, brought down considerably?
Chris Grayling
Of course if the scheme is to go forward, it has to be at an affordable price. It is part of the Government’s broader strategy to improve connections between east Lancashire and West Yorkshire, and I commend those Members who have made such a powerful case for the improvement of those routes—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), at the other end in West Yorkshire, who has talked about the importance of those routes.
I also believe it is of fundamental importance that we have a proper freight route across the Pennines, as well as passenger services for local communities in those areas, so that we can provide shorter journey times from ports on the east and west coasts. That, to my mind, is the central part of this work.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
The Department has made no recent assessment of the potential effect of the introduction of seating-only policies on our national rail network. I understand that Virgin set out a number of proposals in its submission to the Williams rail review, including seating-only services. Those will of course be considered by Mr Williams and his team as their work progresses.
Mr Cunningham
When do the Minister or his officials propose to have discussions with Virgin Trains? There is a great deal of concern that this could affect Virgin employees and, equally, pensioners’ freedom to travel, so I hope the Minister will discuss this with Virgin.
Andrew Jones
I look forward to the Williams review’s response to Virgin’s submission. I see Virgin’s point, but I have to say that the turn-up-and-go principle that has always been part of our rail network is important and, I think, valued by passengers. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the impact on passengers and those who work on the railways, but the underlying turn-up-and-go principle is a fundamental part of our rail network, and we would only challenge that with extreme care.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Far too many rail passengers have to stand, which is especially inconvenient for those on lengthy journeys. Many other countries successfully run double-decker trains. Why do we not, with a bit of vision and ambition, introduce double-decker trains on our network?
Andrew Jones
My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. Our challenge is that we have a very old infrastructure, including many cuttings, tunnels and bridges. Cuttings are perhaps less of a problem, but the tunnels and bridges would be more of a challenge. The height capacity, which also impacts on freight, is being considered, but the way to deliver the capacity that my hon. Friend seeks for his constituents and that we want is perhaps not through that route, which would require huge interventions and a large capital budget, but to use other forms of technology and development.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
Brand-new trains capable of operating under electric and diesel power will be introduced into service on the midland main line from 2022. I hope and expect the first train to be tested in 2021. I must leave the announcement on the manufacture of the new trains to the operator, but my hon. Friend knows that I have signalled on many occasions since becoming Secretary of State how committed I am to seeing more trains manufactured in the United Kingdom.
Mrs Latham
How many new trains and carriages will be produced, and how many current ones will be refurbished?
Chris Grayling
The inter-city fleet will be entirely new, which will be a great bonus to travellers on that route. We expect to see more seats and a brand-new fleet of trains, which is really important as we go through the biggest upgrade to the midland main line since the Victorian age. I cannot immediately recall the operator’s plans for the route from Kettering—serving the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone)—but they will no doubt set out the detail of those trains, which will be new commuter electric services down from those stations, for local Members shortly.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Secretary of State knows, we are a great manufacturing nation with the finest technology. Surely, after last night’s wonderful decision on climate change, we should think about how we can make more things in this country, without cheating the public. The Hitachi trains will not be made here, although they will be assembled here. When can we revive the train manufacturing sector in this country?
Chris Grayling
The more we build in this country, the more we invest in research and development. In the north-east, we are seeing more of Hitachi’s capabilities coming to the United Kingdom. The same applies to CAF in south Wales and, in particular, to the great success of Bombardier in Derby. Bombardier currently has a huge amount of work, and is delivering new trains throughout the network. However, I am with the hon. Gentleman: I want more to be done in the United Kingdom. As we move further into the 2020s, I am very committed to ensuring that as much as possible of the new rolling stock that we are expecting is built in the UK.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My question relates to fair and consistent treatment of bidders. Given that the Department has confirmed that all three bidders for the East Midlands franchise were non-compliant, why were only Stagecoach and Arriva disqualified from the competition?
Chris Grayling
Because it is not the case that all three bidders were non-compliant.
Rachael Maskell
Well, that is certainly not what the Secretary of State’s Department is saying. He withheld sensitive market information between 1 and 9 April when disqualifying Stagecoach from the South Eastern and West Coast Partnership competitions, thus demonstrating that his interference further discredits the franchising process. Have any of the bidders for the other rail franchise competitions submitted non-compliant bids, and have they been disqualified? If so, why has the information not been made public?
Chris Grayling
I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s question is based on a totally false premise. She is incorrectly accusing me of interference, and she is incorrectly making assertions about non-compliant bids that are simply inaccurate.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
My Department is working closely with the Border Delivery Group to help to ensure that trade will continue to flow with minimum friction at UK ports. We are also continuing to liaise closely with the devolved Administrations.
Dr Whitford
During the farce of the ferry company with no ferries, and indeed no harbours, the Secretary of State claimed that no taxpayers’ money would be spent on services that were not required. However, the National Audit Office has reported that cancelling the other no-deal ferry services that were contracted to start on 29 March will actually cost £56 million. Did the Secretary of State not understand the contracts that he was signing, or did he not even read them?
Ms Ghani
That was another question with some flaws in it. First, no taxpayers’ money was paid to Seaborne. In view of the article 50 extension, the Government are reviewing no-deal contingency planning, and have decided to terminate the contract with Brittany Ferries and DFDS. It is right for us to ensure that we have done everything that we can in the event of a no-deal scenario. We had to take out an insurance policy, which is why the other contracts were provided. The cost of terminating those contracts will be £43.8 million, but had we delayed the termination, it would have been an extra £10 million. I remind the House that this is just 1% of no-deal planning. If the hon. Lady is concerned about the cost and about no-deal planning, I suggest that she vote for the deal.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
You will realise, Mr Speaker, that when we leave this dreadful European Union, there will be a massive expansion in trade as we increase exports all over the world. Has the Minister—this excellent Minister—planned an expansion of the ports so that we can deal with that increased trade?
Ms Ghani
Once again, my hon. Friend is waving the flag for the United Kingdom. We have indeed put together a 30-year maritime strategy called Maritime 2050, which will help to deliver the fantastic maritime nation that we were before we joined the EU. It is a great opportunity to promote again the hard work undertaken by our ports, including preparing for the possibility of—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am listening to the flow of the Minister’s eloquence and the eloquence of her flow, but meanwhile the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) is chuntering from a sedentary position to no obvious benefit or purpose; the only thing I can detect is some muttering about one flag rather than another flag. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak on his feet with force and Demosthenian eloquence in due course.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Transport Minister in the Lords said yesterday that she did not rule out our having a no-deal scenario in October and therefore we could potentially be exactly where we are now later in the year. Can the Minister assure me that the ferry companies will not get double-bubble if that unfortunate situation occurs?
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
So far we have had a contract with a company with no ships and illegal procurement practices, which resulted in Eurotunnel winning £33 million in compensation, and then the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and tells us the £50-odd million cancellation of the current services is the right thing to do as part of the Brexit preparations. Now we also learn that P&O is suing the Department. When did the Minister learn of its action? Will this go through the courts, or will there be another £33 million cave-in as apparently such sums do not matter as they only represent a small percentage of the overall figure?
Ms Ghani
I am not going to comment on any procedures taking place in respect of legal action, but if the hon. Gentleman really is concerned about no-deal planning, he cannot in one breath say we have not prepared enough and in the next say we have prepared and now we have to deal with the consequences. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about no deal, I suggest he think about voting for the deal. It was absolutely right that we respected the needs across Whitehall and procured freight capacity, including for urgent medical equipment and medicines that may or may not be needed; it was the right and responsible thing to do.
Alan Brown
I suggest that the Minister should change the record: why should we vote for a deal that we think is a bad deal just to cover up this Government’s incompetence? We have had 89 lorries mimicking the effects of 10,000 lorries, a contract given to a company with no ships, a £33 million out-of-court settlement, another court case looming, and contracts with a 29 March no-deal date that could not be changed costing an estimated £56 million, yet the Government say they have stood down their no-deal preparations as they seem to think everything is okay. What real Brexit preparations work are this Government doing for a possible no-deal exit on 31 October?
Ms Ghani
That is such a lengthy question that I feel the hon. Gentleman has already cracked the urgent question to come after these departmental questions. To go over the whole debate about Brexit, we would need far more time than we have now. The public made a decision, and it was our job to undertake everything that would come out of that decision so we have to prepare for no deal. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is criticising us for preparing for no deal or for having no deal in the first place. It was the outcome once we had triggered article 50, and I must say that the work undertaken by the Department for Transport with our port sector was remarkable, with all the officers and directors who worked within the Department to ensure that everything was in place if no deal was to happen. The Department for Transport has a role to ensure that every other Department within Whitehall has what it requires for a no-deal scenario; that is why those contracts were procured and that is why we are in the situation we are in now.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
Rail franchising has delivered substantial benefits to passengers and record levels of investment over the past 25 years, but it is time for a fresh approach and that is why we set up the Williams review, which will enable us to fundamentally realign the railway industry, with a renewed focus on the needs of passengers and freight customers across the country in the future.
Mr Sweeney
Well, the chair of that review has just said that the franchising system is not fit for purpose. In the light of that, does the Secretary of State not agree with Opposition Members that privatisation has been a litany of failure, that the fragmentation of the network has meant the coherence of the passenger-led system has been destroyed and that we need to have a reintegrated railway system under democratic control? Is that not the future for the railway system in this country?
Chris Grayling
The Labour party is very clear that it wants to recreate British Rail, and it has every right to argue for that—[Interruption.] Labour Members say no, but that is their policy. I remember the days of British Rail. It was a state-run railway on which routes were closed, services were cut and the trains were old and outdated. Today, we have a railway that carries twice as many passengers as it did in those days and has far more trains. The challenges that we face are challenges of success, not failure.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
Of course, the Transport Secretary is right in many respects. In my own community, Putney station needs a second entrance to cope with the overcrowding, which is a sign of how important it is for commuters every day. Will he give us an update on this? He very helpfully visited the station last year, and he has described getting a second entrance as a second win. Will he update us on his discussions with Network Rail to help to move that project forward?
Chris Grayling
Since my right hon. Friend and I visited her station, I have discussed the issue with my Department and with Network Rail. In the past month, we have entered the new rail control investment period, which will involve £48 billion—a record level of investment in the railways—including a number of hundreds of millions of pounds to invest in stations and improvements. I absolutely accept, and I think we all believe, that particularly at busy stations in and around our commuter centres—which Putney certainly is—we will need such improvements. She knows that I am very sympathetic to what we need to do there.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that, when we embark on a new franchising system, one of the considerations needs to be the provision of services not just on the main arterial routes but on the secondary routes—such as a direct service from King’s Cross to Cleethorpes?
Chris Grayling
This is one of the things we need to achieve for the future. There is demand for extra services all round the country, and to release that demand, we need to continue to invest in capacity. That is what we are going to be doing in the next control period. We will also need to use smart technology such as digital signalling to increase the number of train paths, and we will of course need to expand the network, which is what the HS2 project is all about. I absolutely understand and share my hon. Friend’s ambition.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I must apologise to you, Mr Speaker, because I am not possessed of either a Demosthenic or a Ciceronian eloquence, but what I can do is focus the House’s attention on this perfectly formed and important local question regarding Bradford Council’s discussions on a Shipley eastern bypass. My hon. Friend has been a highly effective campaigner for this project, and as he will know, we have supported it within my Department. My officials remain in regular contact with officers from Bradford Metropolitan District Council. The council will need to provide a detailed business case for the Department to review to take forward plans for the road scheme, and my officials are advising the council on how to develop its business case.
Mr Speaker
Frankly, the Minister is altogether too modest. However, it is my own firm conviction, based on observing the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for the past 14 years, that he combines the qualities of both those illustrious orators.
Philip Davies
You are very kind, Mr Speaker, but I am not sure that we would want a Division on that proposition. As the Minister has made clear, the Government have paid for a feasibility study to be carried out, for which I am extremely grateful, but since then, not a fat lot seems to have happened at the Bradford Council end. So when does he expect to see the feasibility study completed by Bradford Council so that we can crack on with delivering this vital scheme?
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus attention on the council, because it is with the council that the situation presently lies. Bradford Metropolitan District Council has said that, by November this year, it will submit a strategic outline business case looking at how to resolve congestion issues in Shipley. The Department will then consider it and provide recommendations to Ministers.
Mr Speaker
I am not altogether sure of the link between Brecon and Radnorshire and the Shipley eastern bypass, but I have a feeling that I am about to be enlightened by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies).
Chris Davies
All will be revealed, Mr Speaker. Has my hon. Friend the Minister had any recent discussions with the Welsh Government over the urgent need for the M4 relief road, which will provide quicker and better access from Wales to Shipley and the rest of the UK?
Jesse Norman
How unwise I was to have considered this a tightly focused question. I had entirely failed to understand the national implications for this proposal across Wales and England. My officials remain in close discussions not merely with Highways England about the M4 but with the Welsh Government about the strategic road network. I therefore have no doubt that once the great Shipley bypass has been constructed, access from Wales will be as uninterrupted as my hon. Friend would wish it to be.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
Before 31 March 2003, tolls from the Dartford crossing financed the construction of the QE2 bridge, paid down pre-existing debts and provided a future maintenance fund. After 1 April 2003, a charging scheme to manage demand was introduced at the crossing, reflecting research suggesting that if the tolls were lifted, demand would be 17% higher and congestion would worsen accordingly. To respond directly to the hon. Lady’s question, the user charges have raised a net income of £669 million in the period 2003-14 to 2017-18, which has been reinvested in transport.
Teresa Pearce
I thank the Minister for his response, but according to my reading of the legislation and the accounts, the income from the Dartford crossing is paid to the Department for Transport with no ring fence, so it can be spent anywhere on anything transport related. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case? Given the crossing’s adverse effect on Bexley and Dartford residents in terms of air pollution, congestion, extended journey times and often complete gridlock—the hospital is on one side of the Dartford bridge and residents are on the other—what percentage of the income has been and will be spent on improving transport for those residents?
Jesse Norman
I can confirm that all the money raised is reinvested into transport, and the benefits of that are felt locally through the charge, which reduces congestion and therefore improves air quality. Of course, a vastly greater sum is projected to be invested in the lower Thames crossing, which is currently under way and will relieve significant burdens on her local community.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Local bus journeys remain central to transport choices, accounting for around 59% of all public transport journeys. The number of local bus passenger journeys in England has fallen since the 1950s to 4.36 billion in the year ending March 2018.
Mr Hepburn
Since 2010, public funding for bus services has been cut by 45%, leading to a 20% decrease in passenger journeys. At the same time, bus operators have pocketed £1.5 billion in profits. Does the Minister think that the country and commuters are getting a good deal?
Ms Ghani
Well, bus patronage differs up and down the country, as does the number of miles covered by buses. When local authorities have good partnerships with bus companies, the number of bus passengers across all age groups tends to be higher. It is fundamental to note that the one place where bus miles are going down is in Labour-led Wales.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Further to that point, does the Minister agree that we should congratulate Henley Town Council on its provision of a Saturday bus service, which is increasing bus journeys around the town, particularly for the vulnerable?
Ms Ghani
Once again, my hon. Friend is a true champion of his constituency, and he refers specifically to Henley Town Council. When a council has a good relationship and partnership with a bus operating company, decisions about where and how buses should run can be made close to home to ensure that services are run how passengers want. I want buses to be the most convenient, accessible and greenest form of transport across our country. This is not just about funding; it is about good relationships between local authorities and bus operating companies.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) made an important point. Bus services are in deep crisis: funding has been slashed by £645 million a year in real terms since 2010; over 3,000 routes have been cut; and fares have soared by 2.5 times the increase in wages. It is therefore hardly surprising that passenger numbers have fallen by 10% since 2010. Will the Minister now apologise to the millions of pensioners, young people and commuters who rely on our buses?
Ms Ghani
Bus passenger numbers vary across the country, and I do not think it is appropriate for the hon. Gentleman just to whitewash bus services as if they were one national service. He should realise that bus passenger numbers are up by 15% in Bristol and by 38% in Poole, and bus passenger numbers are up among young people in Liverpool as well. Over £1 billion is spent on bus services, with some going directly to local authorities and some going to bus operating companies.
When the hon. Gentleman talks about the cost of a bus journey, it is important to remember that, every year, the cost went up three times as fast under the Labour Government than it ever has under this Government. Under Labour Governments, no matter how much change a person has in their pocket, they will never be able to afford that bus journey.
Matt Rodda
It seems that the Minister, sadly, may not fully acknowledge the depth of the crisis affecting our buses. For many people, buses are the only means of public transport. The crisis in our bus services is damaging our communities, particularly the young, the old and people with disabilities.
Our councils stand ready to help where this Government have failed. Indeed, the Minister references the work done by some excellent Labour councils across the country. On local election day, can she tell the House why the Government will not allow all local authorities the powers to regulate bus services and, indeed, to set up new council-run bus companies? Both measures have led to much-improved services across the country.
Ms Ghani
I can tell the House, on local election day, that we have put in place legislation under the Bus Services Act 2017 to allow local authorities to manage those partnerships with their bus companies to ensure that they deliver good value and good services locally. All local authorities need to do is to work on business plans and timetabling and they can bring those partnerships forward. They have not done that yet.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
The Government take performance seriously and understand it is crucial to passengers and freight users, which is why we agreed a Network Rail settlement for England and Wales of £47.9 billion for control period 6 specifically aimed at maintaining and renewing the railway to improve reliability and punctuality for all rail users. The budget in Scotland is £4.85 billion, and I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to make similar representations to the Scottish Government, who have devolved control of railway infrastructure funding in Scotland.
Patrick Grady
I am sure the Minister and the whole House will want to welcome Monday’s launch of the new sleeper stock on the Caledonian Sleeper service. I recommend the service to you, Mr Speaker, should you ever want to come and visit us up in Glasgow.
Of course, the first services were slightly hampered by delays and a fall in punctuality as a result of signal failures and problems with Network Rail. Given the success, the ambition and the vision that the Scottish Government have shown with this new sleeper service, should they not now also have the power devolved to control the whole of Network Rail so that we can deal with some of these punctuality issues?
Andrew Jones
The whole of Network Rail would include England and Wales, which might be a stretch for the Scottish Government. I obviously also welcome the arrival of the Caledonian Sleeper. I have not seen the service yet, but I understand it is fantastic and I look forward to seeing it, and potentially even using it.
On how this is structured, the Scottish Government, as they should, have control of the spending north of the border in Scotland. I am keen to see devolution across our rail network. Local solutions to local problems is a merit that we should be considering.
I just point out that we have had a good run on punctuality over the past few months in the UK. Performance obviously needs to be constantly improved but, when I checked this morning, 95% of trains were on time, including 94% of trains in Scotland. That is a strong performance from ScotRail and a strong performance across our whole network.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Punctuality is often viewed through the prism of the big strategic journeys, but may I urge my hon. Friend also to take into account, when considering how to improve punctuality and bringing pressure so to do on the operators, those small, intercounty and over county boundary journeys that are often so important to students and workers? I think particularly of those from Gillingham in my constituency through to either Salisbury or back to Dorchester—those journeys are vital to the local economy, and the service is not quite good enough.
Mr Speaker
I am wondering whether the Minister is going to offer to sample the service—
Mr Speaker
Indeed. But it is not a sleeper service, so he will have to be awake.
Andrew Jones
I do sometimes fall asleep on the trains at the end of the week if I am heading north again. I was not planning such a visit, but I am always happy to visit and I would be happy to take up the invitation that you have just suggested my hon. Friend makes, Mr Speaker. I never think of punctuality as purely an inter-city question; everybody who uses our rail network should be able to expect to be on time every time. That is why the measure of punctuality is being changed to include “on time every time”, including all the stations on a route, not just the final destination. That data is being collected for the first time now and is very encouraging. Let me confirm to my hon. Friend that I agree entirely with his basic point, which is that passengers deserve an on-time service every time, and it is part of my planning.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I think this a bit tangential to punctuality, Mr Speaker, but I might try to get it in. [Hon. Members: “Give it a shot.”] Will the Secretary of State honour the pledge he made to me on 17 July 2017? I realise that that is not a punctual request, but now is the time. I asked him about the mutual mistrust between NW10 residents and HS2, and he said that his door would always be open. Now that construction has started, they feel as though they are living in a war zone, a dustbowl and the longest and largest building site in Europe. So will he make a visit or sit down with me and my constituents to sort this out?
Andrew Jones
Yes, there was a little bit of a tangent in that question. I am not the HS2 Minister, but I can, having just checked with the person who is, say that she will be happy to meet the hon. Lady. We will set that meeting up soon.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
I know that, like me, the Minister will welcome the electrification of the midland main line, a project currently being undertaken, and the new half-hourly service to and from Corby, which will be a real boost for our rail services in north Northamptonshire. But there is still a demand for more northbound services from Corby, so will he help me to explore that possibility, as I think we ought to be tapping the huge potential there?
Andrew Jones
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituency, and for the rail services to and from it. The new franchise will certainly bring a wide set of positive developments for the rail passengers of Corby. I am more than happy to agree with him on this and meet him to work together to see what we can do to make these services even better.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
If the Government are going to take on my predecessor Tom Harris, who sits on the Government’s own rail review board, they had better make sure that they are right. So can the Minister explain why Mr Harris is wrong when he calls for control over Network Rail to go to the Scottish Government?
Andrew Jones
I am aware of the work that Mr Harris does as part of the rail review, and I am looking forward to seeing what the rail review says. We have had some early indications on its thinking. We have seen some speeches made by Mr Williams to give some indicative direction on its thinking, and we will see more later in the summer. I think we should be looking forward to its work with enthusiasm.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
Cycling and walking are an important part of transport strategy for this Government, and of course they bring great benefits in terms of health, combating obesity and improving air quality, and, as the Committee on Climate Change has reminded us, with their effects on the environment more widely. We published the cycling and walking investment strategy in 2017. Since then, we have conducted a major cycling and walking safety review, as well as providing a lot more funding; about £2 billion is being invested over this Parliament. The Department is also supporting 46 local authorities with their local cycling and walking infrastructure plans, so they can deliver cycling and walking schemes according to a more phased and consistent long-term programme.
Daniel Kawczynski
As the Minister is an MP in neighbouring Herefordshire, I hope he can come to visit the excellent new cycle track in Shropshire. It has been built by Shropshire Council between the villages of Pontesbury and Minsterley and makes it more safe to cycle between villages in our county. Will the Minister come and have a look at the scheme? What more can he do to support councils in the building of safe cycle tracks?
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend will be aware that we have just made an award to Shrewsbury for the relief road, through the large local majors scheme. I look forward to visiting that road at some future point, and at the same time I will certainly tie in a happy cycle down the excellent cycle path between Pontesbury and Minsterley. My hon. Friend should know that, more widely, we are now investing at a high rate in cycling and walking schemes, including through the transforming cities fund, which is now up to £2.5 billion in total; the housing infrastructure fund; and our new £675 million future high streets fund, which is specifically targeted at smaller conurbations.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Yorkhill and Kelvingrove Community Council recently submitted a £2 million community-led bid to the Sustrans Community Links Plus competition, with the ambition of making the area Scotland’s most accessible community. Will the Minister welcome this cycling-village project which, as well as linking three national cycle routes, will be pedestrian, wheelchair and autism friendly? Would he welcome similar community-led initiatives throughout the UK?
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Lady will know, I am almost idiotically keen on cycling projects, so I massively welcome that development. We have recently funded Sustrans with a further £20 million-odd to support the national cycle network and are a great believer in much of the work that it does.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Change UK)
We know from the international evidence what would work to boost us to continental levels of cycling: consistent, long-term funding, rather than stop-start funding, and for both capital and revenue projects. Will the Minister set out what he is planning to ask for? Will he press for cycling funding of £10 to £35 per head, to bring us up to continental levels?
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I actually spent two hours yesterday in front of the Transport Committee debating exactly that question and specifying in some detail some of my hopes and expectations for future work, including for the spending review. Of course the hon. Lady is right about the importance of consistency and longevity in funding—that is what our local cycling and walking investment plans are doing and why we welcome the work that has been done in Birmingham by Mayor Andy Street and in Manchester through the Chris Boardman and Brian Deegan project—but I remind her that in 2010 the level of funding for cycling and walking was £2.50 a head; it is now at more than £7, and I hope that that upward direction will continue.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
The House will be aware that yesterday the High Court ruling on the proposed expansion of Heathrow found that my Department acted lawfully on all counts. It would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to thank all those in my Department who worked on the case for their exemplary work, not only through the preparation period for the national policy statement but on the case itself. I also express my thanks to the business community, to the trade unions, including Unite in particular, and to the vast majority of Members of Parliament who have supported expansion. We must now get on with delivering that expansion for Britain, although always mindful that the expansion scheme must fit in with the UK’s climate change obligations.
Mrs Latham
With new fleets on order for London Underground, the midland main line and High Speed 2, what is the Secretary of State and his Department doing to ensure that rolling-stock manufacturers maximise the UK content on trains?
Chris Grayling
I have said to all those who are commissioning new trains, particularly when my Department has a role in the procurement, that I expect manufacturers, when they deliver trains—this is an important point going back to what the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said earlier—to leave a skills footprint and a technology footprint in the United Kingdom. One thing we can all do through the procurement process is to be absolutely insistent that that skills footprint is left behind. That does more than anything else to ensure that trains are and will be built in the United Kingdom.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is in charge of the worst-performing Department when it comes to emissions. Transport emissions have risen since 2010. The Committee on Climate Change said that
“the fact is that we’re off track to meet our own emissions targets in the 2020s and 2030s.”
Is the Secretary of State content with this failure, or will he commit to honouring the UK’s own legal and international climate change commitments?
Chris Grayling
First of all, I am part of a Government who have presided over a fall in Britain’s carbon emissions. Indeed my hon. Friends who have spoken on this matter over the past two days have set out ways in which this Government are among the leaders in the world in seeking to reduce carbon emissions and to deliver actual results in doing so. Members should look at what we are doing in pushing for a transformation of other vehicle fleets on our roads and in getting hydrogen trains on to our rail network as quickly as possible. If they look at the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) is doing to promote cycling and walking, they will see that we are spending more than previous Governments have done. There is, of course, much more to do, but we are working harder than any previous Government to deliver real change.
Andy McDonald
The Government contributed to the UN’s special report on 1.5°C, yet failed to take into account its contents when designating the airports national policy statement. Similarly, the Secretary of State admitted that the Paris agreement, ratified years ago by the UK and by almost every country in the world, was not considered when designating the ANPS. Given that the UK Government have now accepted that we are in a climate emergency, will he review the ANPS in the light of Paris, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and the Committee on Climate Change advice—if yes, when?
Chris Grayling
When we prepared the ANPS and when the Airports Commission prepared its recommendations, it was done in the context of the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change. We have continued to work with the Committee on Climate Change, and I am confident that we will deliver that expansion and continue to fulfil our obligations to reduce carbon emissions and move towards what was set out this morning.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I can confirm that, compared with today, there will more trains from Kettering going north. The trains will be new, so they will have more seats, which means that, in terms of capacity, there will be more trains and better trains. On timing, we will see the start of more services for my hon. Friend’s constituents from December 2020.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
Andrew Jones
I simply do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. This service is not being run on the cheap. We are seeing record levels of investment—both private and public investment is at a record level. Perhaps I should point out to him that his party’s policy is to nationalise the railways, which will result in more cash required from the Government, but of course the Labour party has not yet said where it might come from. We are focused on delivering the enhancements to the network, which will meet our aspirations for a high-capacity, environmentally clean rail network underpinning the UK economy. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot really agree with the premise of the question.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Is there any progress internationally in discussions to include maritime and aviation emissions?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
When it comes to maritime emissions, we can look at the work of the International Maritime Organisation, which is opposite us on the Thames. A huge amount of work was done earlier this year to look at driving down greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050. It is interesting to note that this Government led the high-ambition coalition to get that agreement made, so we are not only leading nationally, but driving down greenhouse gas emissions internationally as well.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Ministers will have seen the National Audit Office report on the sale of railway arches by Network Rail, which includes some criticism. It is of some concern that the impact on tenants was not an explicit sale objective and was considered only late in the sale process. Ministers were aware—we had meetings with the Minister responsible before the sale took place—but they seemed indifferent to the significant potential for massive rent rises for the businesses in the railway arches across the country. Given this NAO report and its criticism, what will Ministers now do to safeguard the interests of those businesses and to make sure that they are not subjected to massive rent rises by the new leaseholder management company?
Chris Grayling
When I took on this sale, I ensured—in the work we did to prepare for the sale and with potential buyers—that additional safeguards were put in place for those tenants. Whether the arches had remained in the public sector or been sold, it would always have been right to ensure that a market rent was charged. There is no expectation of rent increases out of line with market rents. In the public sector, it would not have been proper use of public money to provide subsidised rents for businesses.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
On airport security, given the stresses and strains on many police forces, not least the Met police and Sussex police, what further consideration has the Transport Secretary given to allowing the British Transport police to have responsibility for the security of British airports?
Chris Grayling
That suggestion has been put to me on a couple of occasions. At the moment, because of the nature of the threat around our airports and the fact that so much airport security—particularly at our principal airports—is done through the Metropolitan police, who co-ordinate anti-terror work nationally, I am not yet convinced that it would be the right thing to do, but I am always open to considering change if it will deliver improvement.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Constituents have contacted me again this week to highlight the eye-watering increases in the cost of commuting by rail to Bristol, and how that is forcing them into their cars. After yesterday’s climate emergency debate, is it not time for Ministers to act on extortionate rail fares?
Andrew Jones
We are in the sixth year of capping regulated fares in line with inflation. Also this year, we have introduced the railcard for 16 and 17-year-olds—effectively extending child fares up to their 18th birthday. The hon. Lady should recognise the action that is taking place and remember that Labour gave us a 10% fare increase during its last year in office. Where Labour is running the devolved railways, it is also increasing fares in line with inflation, so she should be backing the Government’s policy, not criticising it.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
I was hugely concerned to see that, although the Secretary of State was sent a memo in November 2017 outlining how many millions of people would be affected by the third runway expansion at Heathrow—up to 13 million people were planned to be part of a publicity campaign letting them know what was going on, and 5 million people were to be leafleted directly—that campaign never took place because it was vetoed by officials at the Department. We effectively had a vote in this place when communities and the people who represent them were entirely unaware of the extent of extra noise from Heathrow. How can the Secretary of State be confident that there really is public support for this project when the public are wholly unaware of its impact on them?
Chris Grayling
I assure my right hon. Friend that nobody in my Department has vetoed any consultations. We have carried out all the consultations that we are statutorily obliged to carry out. Of course Heathrow airport is now also so obliged, and has been carrying out consultations itself, so we cannot veto it; this is part of a process. As I have said all along, a central part of the proposal is that Heathrow delivers a world-class package of support to affected communities, and that is central to what we will insist that it does. That is an absolute given and an absolute red line for the Government.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the ministerial team aware that an all-party group of Members of Parliament came together to secure the seatbelt legislation many years ago? After 13 failed attempts, we actually got it through on the 14th, and the number of lives saved and serious injuries prevented has been substantial. The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which I chair and which is still a vigorous cross-party group, is concerned by the report today that seatbelt wearing is declining. A quarter of the people killed on the roads last year were not wearing their seatbelts. Could we make it an enforceable offence with three penalty points? Can we take action on this?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
We absolutely recognise the original achievement of passing that legislation. I thank PACTS for the work that it has done on this report, which I warmly welcome. Needless to say, we are working very closely with it. We will look very closely at the report. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have a road safety refresh statement coming up over the summer, and we will look at this in that context as well.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
There is a huge problem with congestion at Kibworth in my constituency. What development funding will be available to work up a bypass scheme, and will there be any money available as part of RIS—road investment strategy—3?
Jesse Norman
I am not aware of the scheme that my hon. Friend has specifically raised. The RIS 2 announcement will not be made until towards the end of this year, and RIS 3 will not begin until 2025. However, I would be very happy to meet him to discuss the issue in more detail, because it is obviously very important to his constituents.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Now that this House has taken the lead in supporting Labour’s climate change emergency motion yesterday, does the Department for Transport not agree that it is time that we made sure that there can be no new roads without cycle lanes, unless there is a damned good reason why not, and no new housing without cycle locks and electric car charging points?
Chris Grayling
Of course we will continue to seek to expand the cycle network. Given the nature of the hon. Lady’s constituency, I hope she will welcome the commitment and the money that this Government are putting into MetroWest that will help to reduce congestion in the centre of Bristol, get people out of their cars and create a cleaner environment for people in her city.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
You will recall, Mr Speaker, that I have moaned previously about the fact that there was a bridge knocked down in my constituency, near to the Corby constituency and right by a business development centre, leaving people stranded. Thanks to the efforts of a local community action group, ROAR—Reinstate Our Access Road—plus Councillor Gill Mercer, and, in particular, the intervention by the excellent Secretary of State, that bridge is now going to be rebuilt. Does the Secretary of State agree that local democracy, hard work and a Secretary of State can get things done?
Chris Grayling
I am very pleased that we managed to resolve the problem. My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point. When the unexpected happens or an unintended consequence disrupts a community, the ministerial team and I will always try to do everything we can to ameliorate or change it.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Yesterday’s judicial review on Heathrow was concerned only with the legality of the decision, not the merits of airport expansion. Given that this House has overwhelmingly affirmed that we face a climate emergency, surely a swift and easy way of meeting our obligations would be to cancel the third runway at Heathrow. Not only will it pollute my constituents’ lungs, but it is costing us the earth—literally.
Chris Grayling
I gently remind the hon. Lady that this Parliament voted with a majority of nearly 300 to designate the national policy statement because we recognise that we need to provide jobs for the future, economic opportunities, and indeed the wealth that will deliver the environmental technologies that will clean up this country and help to clean up the planet. As I said earlier, we have sought, and the Airports Commission has sought, to make sure that these expansion plans are consistent with those obligations. International aviation does present a challenge, but I do not believe that we are suddenly going to see it disappear in the future. International aviation is only likely to disappear if the cost of holidays and the cost of travel is put up by Labour.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Rail Minister will recall that on his recent visit to my constituency, Associated British Ports and the other business representatives present expressed concern about east-west capacity for freight haulage. The Secretary of State referred to this earlier. Will the Minister agree to meet me, ABP and other representatives to see how we can further increase capacity?
Andrew Jones
I had a very interesting visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency. He laid on an extremely good range of businesses, so I have clear insight into the concerns of the business community that he serves. I would of course be very happy to meet him. I can confirm that increasing capacity and having more freight services in the UK is a Government priority.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Holywell Town Council, in conjunction with Tesco, has recently put in place the first electronic vehicle charging point in a town centre in my constituency. I know the Minister will agree that the Government need to do more, so will he give an update on what progress has been made since the fanfare announcement last July of support for electronic charging points? How many have been introduced as a result of a Government initiative?
Jesse Norman
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we take that matter very seriously. We are about to launch the charging infrastructure investment fund, which will see £200 million of public money matched by £200 million of private sector money. We expect a rapid roll-out to what is already one of the largest charging networks in Europe.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge expressway started life as a project under the coalition Government, with Liberal Democrats in the Department at the time? Does he agree that the best opportunity to mitigate its effects for local villages is for it to go west of Oxford?
Jesse Norman
I can certainly confirm that the project originated in the coalition Government, and it would be quite disingenuous of any political party that was part of it to seek to distance itself from that decision. Of course, I can make no statement whatever about the direction, since that is the subject of a continued process of consultation and review.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) in thanking the excellent Secretary of State for getting the Leyland bridge issue sorted out. My constituents in Irthlingborough are delighted that the bridge will be rebuilt, but will he join us in keeping the pressure up, to ensure that it is done as quickly as possible? The inconvenience is unacceptable, and that would be very much appreciated.
Chris Grayling
I will indeed give that assurance. We continue with the biggest investment programme in the railways for decades and decades, and indeed the biggest investment programme in our roads for decades and decades—an investment programme that will help motorists, but which the Labour party wants to scale back, as part of its war on the motorist. I give a commitment that, as we seek to invest in the future of this country, we will do everything we can to minimise the disruption. I cannot promise that there will be none, but we will try to minimise it.
Matt Rodda
I seek your advice, because I believe that the buses Minister may have inadvertently misled the House. In our exchanges, she claimed that all local authorities have powers to franchise buses. I believe that the Bus Services Act 2017 only allows metro mayors to do that, and there is a very small number of them, whereas there are hundreds of local authorities.
Mr Speaker
The Minister is champing at the bit. She clearly wants to respond, and we are happy for her to do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not say “franchising”; I said “partnerships”. The Bus Services Act introduced new powers for local authorities and operators to work together through partnerships and franchising. Mayoral authorities have those powers automatically. All local authorities must approach the Department if they wish to get permission. They need to prepare business strategies and put together programmes of work, but we are ready and waiting to work with them, as we do already. Mayoral authorities can franchise, and local authorities can put together partnerships. I am more than happy to put that on the record.
National Security Council Leak
(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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
Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on the findings of the inquiry into the National Security Council leak.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
The National Security Council takes critical decisions about keeping this country safe. It was established in 2010, in part following lessons learned from the Iraq war, to ensure proper co-ordinated decision making across the whole of the Government. It operates with the full breadth of expertise in the room, with Ministers from the relevant Departments and advisers and officials, including the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, the heads of the intelligence services and others.
The decisions that it makes are critical to the safety of British citizens and to British interests both in this country and around the world. For example, it is inconceivable today that the Cabinet could take a decision to commit combat troops without a full and challenging prior discussion in the NSC, on the basis of full papers, including written legal advice, prepared and stress-tested by all relevant Departments, and with decisions formally minuted. I am sure that the whole House will recognise how important it is that those decisions are taken in an environment in which members of the council and those who advise them feel free to speak their mind, with absolute certainty that the advice that they provide and the conclusions that they reach will remain confidential.
The leak investigation into the disclosure of information about 5G was constituted to ensure that the integrity of the NSC in general was upheld and, vitally, that participants in NSC meetings could continue to hold full confidence in its operation and the confidentiality of its proceedings. The Prime Minister set out her response to evidence from the leak investigation last night, and has thanked all members of the National Security Council for their full co-operation and candour during the investigation.
The unauthorised disclosure of any information from the Government is serious, and especially so from the National Security Council. The Prime Minister has said that she now considers that this matter has been closed, and the Cabinet Secretary does not consider it necessary to refer it to the police, but we would of course co-operate fully should the police themselves consider that an investigation were necessary.
The House will recognise that it is the policy of successive Governments of different political parties not to comment on the detail of leak investigations, and I will not comment on specific circumstances or personnel decisions.
Tom Watson
The primary duty of any Government is to keep our country safe and secure. On that we all agree. This leak from the National Security Council is a fundamental breach of that duty. Let us be clear here: the Prime Minister believes that her former Defence Secretary leaked information from the National Security Council; he vehemently denies it. Only one of these accounts is accurate.
I do not think we have ever seen a leak from the National Security Council, and that is why this is so serious. The damning letter from the Prime Minister was a result of her understanding that to leak from that committee was an abdication of responsibility and public duty. It is indicative of the malaise and sickness at the heart of this ailing Government. It is indicative of the sorry state the Conservative party finds itself in. In response to receiving the most brutal sacking I can think of, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) has protested his innocence. Therefore, this matter cannot be, as the Prime Minister says, closed.
The essential point here is that the Prime Minister has sacked the Secretary of State for Defence because she believes there is compelling evidence that he has committed a crime, but despite that she does not believe that he should face a criminal investigation. Where is the justice in that? In what world is it acceptable that the Prime Minister should be the arbiter of whether a politician she believes is guilty of criminal conduct in office should face a criminal investigation? Can the Minister confirm that there were no leaks from the leak inquiry itself, given that details seem to have been passed on to a national newspaper on 30 April?
At the heart of this battle in the National Security Council was whether the Prime Minister’s judgment that Huawei should be allowed to be part of our critical infrastructure network was sound. Many believe it was not. Our Five Eyes partners are so concerned about the UK allowing this company to participate in our 5G network that they are considering whether they can safely continue to share intelligence with us. The Minister will know that for the Americans and the Australians to raise public concerns on this matter is unprecedented. The Five Eyes network is the intelligence apparatus that has helped keep this country safe for nearly half a century. I know that. I have been a Defence Minister, and I have seen the material that we share with each other in total confidence.
In his defiant challenge, the former Defence Secretary has put the Prime Minister’s integrity and judgment in the spotlight. Whether or not he is guilty should be a question for the criminal justice system. The question that the Minister has to answer today is whether he is confident that the Prime Minister’s decision to allow Huawei to participate in our 5G networks keeps this country safe and protects our intelligence relationships with our allies.
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman elided several different subjects in his questions. On the substance of the Government’s policy decisions, it has been said already from this Dispatch Box several times that the review of 5G networks by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is a matter of public record. The Government have committed to telling the House of their conclusions once those decisions have been taken and approved at all levels within the Government and once we are ready to bring the information to the House. That will be the time for the House to learn what the Government have decided and to hold Ministers to account for their decisions.
I can reiterate to the House that the Government’s priorities for the future of telecommunications remain stronger cyber-security practices, greater resilience throughout telecommunications networks and diversity in the marketplace. Again, as has been said before from this Dispatch Box, this is a policy challenge that goes beyond a single company or even a single country, and we continue to work very closely with all our Five Eyes allies and with other international partners.
The problem with this particular case was not so much the material disclosed as the forum from which the leak came. The Prime Minister set up the inquiry and took the decisions she took yesterday to maintain the integrity and secrecy that is essential for the proper conduct of the business of the Government of the United Kingdom, whichever party happens to be in office. As far as I am aware, the inquiry was conducted on the basis of confidentiality throughout its proceedings. It came to conclusions that were reported to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and she took the decisions she announced yesterday.
This boils down to what is set out in paragraph 1.6 of the “Ministerial Code”:
“Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. She is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.”
Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only the work of our intelligence and security services that could be compromised by unauthorised disclosure but the Council’s access to information and advice provided by our allies on a top secret basis? Can he reassure us therefore that our allies have been reassured in turn that this sorry episode will not be repeated?
Mr Lidington
Appropriate contact is of course being made with our key allies, as my right hon. Friend would expect. He is absolutely right. I, like he, can recall discussions that involved not only material of the highest level of classification within the UK Government system but the sharing of information disclosed to us in confidence by key allies. Without going into detail—for obvious reasons—I should remind the House that among the subjects discussed at the National Security Council in the last year alone have been our analysis of and response to the chemical weapons attacks in Salisbury and our analysis and response to the civil war and conflict in Syria. I think that Members on both sides of the House will appreciate the importance of these discussions remaining confidential at all times and of all participants having full confidence that that will continue to be the case.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
This is a most disgraceful episode from the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson). Fair play to the Prime Minister for acting as swiftly as she did, but I am afraid that it is not in her gift to say that the matter is closed. Indeed, the fact that we are here shows that it is far from closed. The fourth paragraph of the Prime Minister’s letter states that all the Cabinet Ministers interviewed
“answered questions, engaged properly, provided as much information as possible”,
yet the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman was not “of the same standard”. What was his conduct? What exactly did he avoid answering?
What is the purpose of this investigation? Surely to God it was not set up only to determine who the leak came from. Surely once that has been determined there must be a more severe consequence than just someone losing their Cabinet position. If the integrity of the Government—what is left of it—is not to be further shot to pieces, there must be more severe consequences. Does the right hon. Gentleman who has been sacked have a future in the Conservative party, or will he be suspended from it? Will he be eligible for future candidacy within the Conservative party, and will he have his CBE removed by the Government? Finally, will the Minister stand at the Dispatch Box and answer a clear question? Has the Official Secrets Act been broken—yes or no?
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman’s final question is not a judgment that I or any other Minister in any Government can make. Whether a criminal offence has been committed is a matter for independent prosecution authorities, and ultimately for the courts. I said earlier that I would not go further into the details of the investigation and its conclusions than had already been set out in the Prime Minister’s public statement.
Members across the House will recognise the history of the close working relationship between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), and that ought to persuade the House that the Prime Minister would not have taken such a decision were there not compelling evidence and no credible alternative explanation for what happened. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Prime Minister stated in her letter that during the investigation the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire and his team was in contrast with the full co-operation received from other ministerial members of the NSC and their teams, and the Prime Minister came to the decision that she announced last night.
On the hon. Gentleman’s request for further punishments, honours are not a matter for a ministerial decision but for an independent committee in any case, but I would just say that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire has lost a job that he loved and to which he was utterly committed, and I think that should stand.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I entirely endorse the words used by my right hon. Friend in his statement, and it is necessary that the working of the National Security Council is kept confidential. Without that, our allies cannot trust us, and it would become impossible to discuss secret matters within the Government. Does he agree that we seem to have watched the progressive breakdown of collective responsibility? Unfortunately, that appears to have a corrosive quality, which starts in people’s willingness to contradict colleagues over policy issues in Cabinet, and creeps incrementally into a willingness to brief externally on discussions of an increasingly secret nature. Does he share my hope that if some good comes out of this most unfortunate episode, it will finally be a shot across the bows for those who think that such behaviour is acceptable?
Mr Lidington
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend about the corrosive effect of unauthorised disclosures. We all have to be honest with ourselves. I do not think there has been a Government in history from which there have not been leaks and gossip from time to time—as I look at Labour Front Benchers, my mind goes back to what we saw under the Blair and Brown Administrations. But I do want to say this in response to my right hon. and learned Friend: above all, when it comes to National Security Council discussions—I think this applies to the Cabinet, too—there is great merit in the very old-fashioned precept that Members should speak with complete candour in the room and shut up when they get outside.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) asked the Minister a very direct question: whether he thought that the Official Secrets Act had been broken. In reply, the Minister said that it was for others to decide. Has the Attorney General been asked for his opinion? Was any other legal advice sought by the Prime Minister in coming to her conclusion?
Mr Lidington
It is not a matter for the Attorney General or any other Minister. This decision has been taken on the basis of the lack of confidence that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, regrettably, came to feel in my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Defence. It followed the principles I set out in quoting from paragraph 1.6 of the ministerial code.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
Having been somewhat involved in the establishment of the National Security Council in its current form, and having sat on it for six years, I completely understand the Prime Minister’s correct understanding that it has to be, as the Minister said, a sealed container if it is to do its work appropriately. Does he agree that notwithstanding the rather brilliant confections of Opposition Members, on this occasion—thank goodness—so far as the substance is concerned and regardless of its legal standing, which I accept is a matter for others to decide, there does not appear to have been a compromise of any classified information?
Mr Lidington
I do not want to rush to make that assumption because normally all papers that are considered by the National Security Council are at an extremely high level of classification. The key point—I think this is the thrust of my right hon. Friend’s question, and I agree with him on it—is that the issue at stake was less the substance of the material that was disclosed than the principle of a leak from the National Security Council. The fact of that leak—that breach of confidentiality—is what puts at risk the mutual trust that is essential for all Ministers and advisers attending those meetings to have in one another, and the trust, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) said earlier, that we expect our allies to have in our respecting the confidentiality of the material that they share with us.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Prime Minister may or may not be right, and as far as the Government are concerned, her exchange of letters yesterday is the end of the matter, but surely when it comes to matters in this House, different considerations apply. The right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) and the Prime Minister are both Members of the House, and they now have very different versions of events in relation to a matter of some national importance. It is surely important that the House should know which of them is right. For that reason, surely either the Prime Minister has to publish the evidence on which she relied, or somebody else has to be allowed to mark her homework. It cannot be possible that both mutually contradictory versions can be allowed to stand.
Mr Lidington
What we are talking about is a leak inquiry, carried out on the instruction of the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary, by another appropriate official, into the unauthorised disclosure of the proceedings of the National Security Council. It is an internal Government matter, just as any such disclosure and any leak inquiry would be considered a matter for the Government concerned—Labour, Conservative or coalition. I really do not think that it would be right to be in a position where the House collectively tried to establish itself as an investigating authority into internal matters relating to the conduct of Ministers as members of the Government, or the conduct of officials as members of the Government. Those are matters that it is quite proper for the Government to determine, and it is then for Ministers, as I am doing this morning, to come to explain the Government’s decision and be held to account by the House.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
Having also sat on the NSC for several years, I recognise the importance of undertaking this leak inquiry. However, at the heart of this is a broader question about the approach that both the NSC and the Cabinet need to take to serve the national and public interest. I completely agree with my right hon. Friend on the NSC, but surely an element of this extends to how Cabinet is conducted, the rules around it and the behaviour of those who sit in the Cabinet.
Is it not now time to be clearer about the ministerial code of conduct and the role of the public interest in briefings given externally? I say that because we have a freedom of information law that clearly sets a public interest test that is routinely applied by Departments, yet it seems that the Secretaries of State running those Departments can routinely set that test themselves, without any regard for the way in which their officials would do so from day to day by almost certainly excluding ever publishing advice to Ministers when the public ask for it.
Mr Lidington
I disagree with my right hon. Friend on this point. I think that Ministers and their officials take their duties to put the public interest first very seriously. That is absolutely central to the principles of not only the ministerial code, but the civil service code which, let us not forget, has statutory force, unlike the ministerial code. In my experience of the last nine years in government, Ministers take those principles very seriously indeed, and their officials—particularly senior officials—are clear and robust in reminding Ministers of those duties. I agree with my right hon. Friend in hoping that lessons will be learned from this particular episode about the importance of mutual trust and the confidentiality of Cabinet proceedings.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Change UK)
For well-rehearsed reasons, this is clearly an extremely serious matter, and it is aggravated by the source of the leak being the Secretary of State for Defence. Many people believe that this really marks the complete disintegration of the Government, with some of their members—I emphasise “some”—having completely swept aside any scrap of decency and honour in the pursuit of blatant personal ambition. This is really important. This is not somebody who has said, “I fundamentally disagree with this decision because it is against the public interest.” It is somebody who has leaked information because of his personal ambition and because of the crisis that exists in government. I do not think there is any question at all—no ifs, no buts—that this matter has to go to the police. In that event, will the Minister undertake that the Government will fully co-operate at all levels—including all Ministers, aides and officials, including special advisers—in that police investigation, which is now critical?
Mr Lidington
If the police consider an investigation to be necessary, the Government, at all levels—Ministers, officials and special advisers—will give full co-operation.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In this country, we believe in natural justice. In any company, the civil service or anywhere else, someone accused of a disciplinary offence, let alone a criminal offence, is given a chance, in an impartial forum, to prove their innocence. As a matter of natural justice, how will the former Defence Secretary now be given an opportunity to prove his innocence?
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire has not been accused of any criminal offence but, sadly, he has lost the confidence of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and she has therefore acted in accordance with the principles set out in the ministerial code.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is difficult not to sympathise with the former Defence Secretary, because in a kangaroo court one cannot prove oneself innocent. That is what many of us are worrying about. If the former Defence Secretary has done what is alleged, he should of course face the full criminal law, but the Minister is completely wrong to say that it has nothing to do with the Attorney General. The Official Secrets Act states categorically that a prosecution can proceed only if the Attorney General allows it to proceed. Any member of the public can go to the police and demand that there be a full investigation—I suspect that many people will—but has the Attorney General’s advice already been sought, and how will the former Defence Secretary be able to make his representations to the Attorney General?
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman mixes up a number of matters. The Attorney General’s consent is required to a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, but the Attorney General has no power to initiate an investigation or a prosecution. The hon. Gentleman is also continuing to confuse two points. What we are dealing with—this is at the heart of the issue and the decision before the Prime Minister yesterday evening—is not so much the substance of what has been disclosed as the fact that the leak was of proceedings of the National Security Council. Therefore, whether or not the various harm tests under the Official Secrets Act were met in this particular case, the Prime Minister reached the decision that, regrettably, she no longer had confidence in my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire. That was why she reached that decision in her assessment of the public interest.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member for New Forest West looks as though he is about to start to sprint. I think that he must be heard.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Outside this House, a right hon. Member is being called a liar, and inside this House, a number of Members have implied as much. Natural justice demands that the evidence be produced so that his reputation can be salvaged or utterly destroyed, doesn’t it?
Mr Lidington
I have, I think, taken great care in the language that I have used in the House today, and I am not in the business of going around making allegations of the kind that have apparently been made outside the House. The fact is, however, that having read the investigation report, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reached the conclusion that there was compelling evidence to suggest responsibility on the part of the former Secretary of State for Defence for the leak from the National Security Council, and that was why she took the decision that she did
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister herself, as chair of the National Security Council, is ultimately responsible for the security and the integrity of its meetings. Does the Minister agree—yes or no?
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Of course the principles of good governance must be upheld, but does this mark a turning point? Further to the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), does this mean that in future we will not see breaches of ministerial collective responsibility that undermine our negotiating position as we leave the EU?
Mr Lidington
I sincerely hope that all Ministers will abide by the principle that one speaks with complete frankness in trying to shape and take decisions about collective Government policy, and then when one leaves the room one supports that Government policy and does not disclose details of the various arguments and debates that may have taken place in Cabinet or Cabinet Committees.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I do not know whether the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) has undertaken a leak or not—I am not party to that information—but from having sat on the Intelligence and Security Committee and being subject to the same official secrets arrangements and the same briefings that Ministers get, I do know that if I had leaked from that Committee, I would have been subject to a criminal prosecution. My question to the Minister is simply this: did the Cabinet Secretary’s report or the Prime Minister’s assessment suggest that at any time the criminal threshold has been crossed, and has a report been made at any time to the police, as would be the case for any crime committed on business or personal premises?
Mr Lidington
Clearly, if there had been evidence to convince the Cabinet Secretary that a crime had been committed, or that prima facie a crime might have been committed, he would have reported that to the Prime Minister and come to a different judgment about whether the Government needed to refer the matter to the police. The decision that the Cabinet Secretary came to was that this matter did not need to be referred to the police. To take up the right hon. Gentleman’s initial point, there is a difference between the tests for criminal offences that are, as he will recall, set out in great detail in the various sections of the Official Secrets Act, and falling below the standards of confidentiality and other conduct required of Ministers under the ministerial code.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
There are a few troubling aspects of this affair, to put it mildly. As we have seen—most people would, I think, agree about this—there have been a number of leaks from the Cabinet as a whole, particularly in the past two years, yet inquiries into those leaks either do not seem to have been pursued or have not led anywhere. An impression is given that a leak from the Cabinet might be okay but a leak from the NSC is not, and we must be very careful to avoid that. I do not think the ministerial code even mentions the NSC or says that it requires a higher level of propriety. Are there any proposals to change the ministerial code in this regard?
Mr Lidington
Because the National Security Council is constitutionally a Committee of the Cabinet, it is automatically covered by the provisions of the code that apply to the Cabinet and all Cabinet Committees. The particularly serious nature of this leak is derived from the fact that it is inherent in the nature of National Security Council discussions and the papers going before it that the very highest degree of secrecy needs to be maintained, but my right hon. Friend’s point about the need for higher standards as regards Cabinet and Cabinet Committee meetings is also well made.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Minister just said that the former Defence Secretary is not accused of committing a criminal act. If he broke the Official Secrets Act, he is accused of committing a criminal act. Can the Minister now answer the question that has been asked three times and he has failed to answer: has the advice of the Attorney General been sought or not?
Mr Lidington
As I said in response to an earlier question, the role of the Attorney General under the Official Secrets Act is not to authorise or initiate investigations, but to give or withhold consent for a prosecution if and when a finished case is presented to him.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I know from sitting firmly on the other side of the official-ministerial divide how hard it is to get officials, let alone our allies, to share important, and particularly secret, information with Ministers at all. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what matters is that we protect the integrity of the National Security Council if it is to operate at all properly?
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Change UK)
How can this matter be closed as far as our security partners are concerned given that the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) has said that he is innocent? Has he been interviewed under oath at any stage during the investigation, because I note that he is not here to set out his position on the Floor of the House and it is vital that our security partners now have confidence? If it was not the former Secretary of State for Defence, who was it?
Mr Lidington
I think our security partners can have confidence that the Prime Minister has acted swiftly and resolutely to uphold the essential integrity and security of National Security Council proceedings.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is regrettable that the Deputy Prime Minister did not offer to make a statement to the House and instead had to respond to an urgent question and that he is not giving away the information that Members are requesting. The former Secretary of State has sworn on the lives of his children that he did not leak the information. This seems to have been a kangaroo court reaching a decision in secret without any evidence to base that decision on. Mr Speaker, you will remember what happened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). There was a rush to judgment and he was forced to resign, but it was then proved that what he was saying was true. Is the Deputy Prime Minister absolutely sure, without any reasonable doubt, that the former Secretary of State is guilty, or could it just be possible that the kangaroo court has made a mistake?
Mr Lidington
There was a thorough investigation. Every ministerial member of the National Security Council, and those officials and special advisers who might have had access to the material relating to the proceedings of that particular meeting, was spoken to and, as the Prime Minister’s letter yesterday made clear, co-operated fully with the investigation. The investigation report was presented to the Prime Minister by the Cabinet Secretary and, having studied it, my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that there was “compelling evidence” to suggest responsibility on the part of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire. As she said in her letter to him yesterday, she took into account the fact that, in the findings of the investigation, there was a difference between the conduct of the former Secretary of State and his team compared with the conduct of other Ministers and their teams. That is why she came to the conclusion that she did. I repeat that this comes back to the question of Ministers serving in office so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. That is a principle that has applied to every Government in this country, and it is what applied in this case.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
By all accounts, the former Defence Secretary is the 38th person to lose their job in a Government riddled with incompetence and disloyalty, so it really is going some actually to be sacked by the Prime Minister. What she has described as a grave breach of trust has been enough to lead to his sacking, so why has it not been enough to call in the police?
Mr Lidington
For the reasons that I have given in response to a number of earlier questions. The key issue here is less the substance of what was disclosed and more the fact that the disclosure was made in respect of proceedings of the National Security Council.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Notwithstanding the particulars of this case, is it not time for the Government finally to bring forward the espionage Bill, which would include the long overdue root and branch reform of the Official Secrets Act? Despite the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments today, is it also not the case that Cabinet leaks will continue as long as Cabinet papers retain their current classification? Is it not time for a review of how Cabinet papers are classified, and should they not all be classified as secret or above?
Mr Lidington
The question of the classification of documents is kept under review the whole time. In my recent experience, some Cabinet papers have been classified at secret level and others at a lower level. The classification depends on the substance of what is included in those papers. My hon. Friend also asked about future legislation, and we are obviously keen to bring forward the measure to which he referred, and other Bills, to the House as soon as we can.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Change UK)
The former Secretary of State for Defence clearly thought that it was his way or the Huawei, and he has been told by the Prime Minister to go away, but he has not shut up. Is it not the reality that we will not get the truth unless the former Defence Secretary makes a resignation or sacking statement to this House and we have the chance to debate it to get to the bottom of the fiasco?
Mr Lidington
Whether my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire wants to apply to you, Mr Speaker, to make a personal statement is a matter for him, but there has been a public exchange of letters between him and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister came to her decision for the reasons that she gave, and I have tried to set those out this morning. Her sense that the decision was necessary was accompanied by a sense of real sadness, because this is not a decision that any Prime Minister would take lightly and it would not be made without considerable regret.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The National Security Council is a relatively modern phenomenon, and my right hon. Friend has set out some of the issues that the body discusses. The clear concern of the House, however, is that if my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) is not responsible for the leak, which is what he says, then someone within the NSC is. It is therefore vital that there is an independent police investigation to demonstrate whether or not he is guilty.
Mr Lidington
It is obviously for the police to decide whether they believe that the case merits their investigation, but it is not their job to conduct leak inquiries regarding material disclosed within the Government, for which there is an established system. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister concluded in her letter to the former Defence Secretary that there was no credible alternative explanation to this particular leak.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The events of the past week have brought into sharp relief both the importance of handling such sensitive information responsibly and the perception that that is undertaken securely. With that in mind, will the Minister reassure me that if the Government had concerns that the Official Secrets Act may have been broken, the matter would be referred to the relevant authorities?
Mr Lidington
Clearly, the Cabinet Secretary made a careful assessment of those matters in coming to his judgment, but that judgment is that this is not something that the Government should refer to the police, and the Prime Minister considers the matter closed. Again, I repeat, it is the fact that this was a disclosure from the National Security Council that is at the heart of the seriousness with which the matter has been taken.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, and I have two questions. First, will he confirm that it is not naive or misplaced still to believe that we have a senior civil service that is imbued with integrity and probity and that we can rely upon? Secondly, following the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), we know that the security and intelligence family is close and, like all families, it relies on a mutual relationship of trust. Will the Minister assure me and the House that, rather than just taking it for granted that our allies consider that we are still trustworthy and steadfast, we will go out proactively and positively to reaffirm that case? Not to do so would clearly put our country at risk.
Mr Lidington
First, yes, I am very confident that we have an impartial and professional senior civil service that is always ready to serve the elected Government to the best of its ability, whatever political stripe that Government bear. Secondly, it is actions rather than words that will demonstrate to our allies on security and intelligence matters that they should continue to trust us, just as we look to their actions when there are reports of things going wrong within their systems, but it is absolutely right that we must act swiftly and be clear about putting right any flaws in our system of the kind that we have experienced with the NSC in the past couple of weeks.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Given that this has never happened before, is not the real question how it can be that the former Defence Secretary, or indeed anyone else, has felt so emboldened and confident to leak confidential information now? Is not the answer to that, in large part, that this Government are so fractured and weakened that they have lost the authority and cohesion to be able to govern? That process will now be compounded by the Government beginning to eat themselves alive in the search for a new leader. Is not the real way to guarantee that this does not happen again for the Government to put themselves out of their own misery and call a general election?
Mr Lidington
Dear, dear. It takes a bit of brass neck for an SNP Member to talk about fights between party leaders. The truth is that the Prime Minister has taken very firm and swift action in response to the leak investigation that was carried out on her instruction. The Government are getting on with the task of developing policies designed to protect and enhance the national security of the United Kingdom in respect of both the safety of our citizens and the defence of our interests around the world.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
All members of the National Security Council have sworn the Privy Council oath, and top secret material is circulated and discussed. If a leak of information from the National Security Council is not a breach of the Official Secrets Act, what is?
Mr Lidington
The various tests for a criminal offence are set out in detail in the Official Secrets Act. Whether or not that threshold has been breached depends on harm tests, and those harm tests are different depending on the category and the content of the information we are talking about.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Surely one risk of this leak is that it effectively predetermines the public mood on the substantive issue of Huawei in a more hawkish fashion before we have come to our own policy conclusions. Of course the Five Eyes are our most important allies, and we have to do everything we can to reassure them, but we are also a sovereign country, and we have our own unique circumstances and our own more nuanced position with Beijing, so can I urge my right hon. Friend to continue all the work across Whitehall in a calm, deliberative and, above all, objective fashion so that we come to the right policy on the point of substance?
Mr Lidington
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments, and he is right. In carrying out that work, it is vital that we have a forum in the National Security Council where the intelligence chiefs can talk frankly to Ministers about their assessment of the balance of risks and threats this country faces and where Ministers, taking account of the best advice available to them, can weigh up how to strike the right balance between this country’s future and developing security interests and our future and developing economic interests to try to steer a way forward that delivers the best outcome for the people of the United Kingdom.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Should any evidence or confirmations disproving these allegations come to light as individuals write up this story, what would be the consequences or implications of that?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend invites me to engage in a bit of hypothetical speculation. If there were to be any such clear evidence, I think the Prime Minister would want it reported to her immediately and given to her in full. It would clearly need to be the provision of information that provided some other credible explanation for the leak that has taken place.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I hold the Minister in high regard. Last week, during Prime Minister’s questions, he implied that Huawei was “a private firm”, effectively at arm’s length from the Chinese state, as one of our own firms would be. Is that not at best a half truth? Huawei is 99% owned by Chinese trade unions and that, in effect, is being part of a one-party state. Therefore, Huawei is, in effect, an arm of the Chinese state.
Mr Lidington
Huawei is officially owned by its employees and is a private Chinese company. It is true, as I believe I said at the Dispatch Box and I have certainly said on previous occasions, as have other Ministers, that there is an issue here, in that Chinese law requires all Chinese companies to co-operate with the Chinese state. But, as I said earlier in response to another question, the review of 5G goes beyond a single company or a single country, because we need to make sure, among other objectives, that we have a diverse marketplace, so that the Government have a genuine choice of suppliers available to them.
Mr Speaker
I will take the points of order, on the assumption, which I would like to think is safe, that neither Member would seek to continue the debate we have just had. I feel sure that these are matters of order and that the Front-Bench Members will focus with a laser-like intensity on that.
Tom Watson
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his answer to me earlier, the Secretary of State said that the matter of investigating a criminal act is one for the police, not for Ministers. Can you assist me as to what remedy there is if I think he may have inadvertently misled the House on that? While we have been in the Chamber, the Metropolitan police have told “ITV News” that the matter to investigate is one for the Cabinet Office and if it shares the information with the police they will investigate, but they will not investigate unless the information is shared. Will the Deputy Prime Minister clear this matter up? Is there a way he can do that? Perhaps he could agree to share the information with the police from the Dispatch Box.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has, as I think he knows, found his own salvation: by means of the attempted point of order he has registered his point. He has placed on the record information that may have been known to some Members but, for example, was certainly not known to me, because I have not been consulting electronic devices but have been merely attending to my duties in the Chair. If the Minister wishes to respond, he is free to do so, but there is, at this point, no sign of him uncoiling. However, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) is a dogged terrier, and I feel sure he and others will pursue these matters if they feel so inclined in the days ahead.
Mr Speaker
Well, I am not sure I see the appropriateness of the inclusion of the word “former”.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In response to the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the Deputy Prime Minister said that the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) was not being
“accused of any criminal offence”.
However, in response to my question, he said that that was not for him to determine. Given the further information just shared by the Labour Front Bencher, both of those things do not stack up, so I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister felt that he should, if you would indulge him, come to the Dispatch Box to clear up these issues that have been raised by me and the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson).
Mr Speaker
I would if he did, but he doesn’t, so I won’t. But I rather fancy that these matters will be explored further in the days ahead. Realistically, it does not seem to me that there is obvious scope for the scrutiny of this matter further in the Chamber today, but who knows what subsequent days might bring. Let us leave it there for now.
No-Deal Brexit: Cross-channel Freight
(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the no-deal Brexit preparations for cross-channel ferry and freight services.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
The Government are now reviewing our contingency planning for a no-deal EU exit, in the wake of recent developments. No decisions have yet been taken for the preparations for the new EU exit date of 31 October, although of course many of the preparations that were made for 29 March are still in place. The planning assumptions that underpinned the original maritime freight capacity activity will need reviewing in the light of the article 50 extension, to understand whether they are still valid. A collective view will then be taken across the Government as to the necessary contingency plans that will need to be implemented, and that will include working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to understand the needs of their supply chains.
In December, we entered into contracts with ferry operators to provide additional capacity into the UK as part of no-deal planning. Those contracts were scheduled to run up until September, and were an essential insurance policy to ensure the continued supply of category 1 goods—primarily medicines and medical devices for the NHS—in the event of a no-deal Brexit. As I have indicated to the House previously, we took that step because of a change to the modelling carried out across the Government that indicated that flows across the short straits could fall significantly, and crucially for significantly longer than had previously been proposed by our analysts. It would have been irresponsible for the Government not to act, as no deal was and remains the legal default. It was an insurance policy, and insurance policies are a prudent investment, whether or not they are actually used.
Following the article 50 extension until 31 October, the Government have now decided to terminate the contracts with Brittany Ferries and DFDS with immediate effect, to minimise the cost to taxpayers. The termination of those contracts costs £43.8 million, which is lower than the National Audit Office’s estimate of the total termination costs, and I should say that it represents around 1% of the overall £4 billion package of no-deal EU exit preparations that the Government have wisely undertaken to ensure that we are ready for all eventualities.
Alan Brown
Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker.
I wonder whether we will ever get to the bottom of this whole mess. Truthfully, the Secretary of State’s statement does not give us any more clarification on what the Government are doing in respect of no-deal preparations. We were told that the initial contracts were part of emergency procurement for the unforeseen scenario of a no-deal Brexit, despite our having been told that the Government had prepared. We were then expected to believe the logic behind handing an emergency service contract to a company with no ships and no financial backing.
In response to an urgent question, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care advised us that the contracts were needed for shipments of priority goods such as medicines, and the Transport Secretary has repeated that in his statement today. If that was the case, why did the contracts kick in automatically on 29 March, rather than being linked to an actual no-deal scenario, whenever that might occur? What exactly did the contracts procure? Why has it taken a month for the latest contracts to be reviewed and cancelled, at a cost of £43 million? What are the Government doing in respect of the next possible no-deal Brexit date of 31 October? If the previous contracts had to be entered into in December for a March kick-in date, it is clear that planning needs to happen now. It is obvious that the Government should be working on preparations right now.
In the emergency debate on the contracts, I asked about the possibility of further legal action and the Secretary of State assured me that there would be none. “A hae ma doots” is what I said at the time, so it comes as no surprise that we now learn that P&O Ferries is suing the Government. When did the Secretary of State find out about P&O’s intentions? Where has that case got to—is it going to go through the courts, or will there be a cave-in and another £33 million settlement?
I know that Governments do not normally publish legal advice, but with this turn of events we are clearly in exceptional circumstances, so will the Government provide or publish the legal advice that they have had over this period? What independent reviews are the Government undertaking to understand the blunders that have happened and to learn lessons so that this does not happen again?
The Secretary of State repeated what the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) said earlier in Transport questions: that the £43 million cost of cancelling the ferry contracts is only 1% of the Brexit preparation costs, as if it does not matter. In actual fact, overall the ferry contracts will probably cost up to £120 million, depending on the P&O settlement, so when will somebody become accountable for this waste of money? It is not a negligible amount of money; it is a lot of money.
Many people ask me why the Secretary of State is still in post after all his blunders. I cannot answer that, but I can ask that he does the right thing, finally takes responsibility and steps aside.
Chris Grayling
As usual, we have the customary stream of nonsense from the hon. Gentleman. This issue has been scrutinised, and will continue to be scrutinised, by members of the National Audit Office, who are the appropriate people to do so. I will not comment on ongoing legal matters, except to say that the Government vigorously disagree with P&O and will defend themselves to the hilt. I really do not think that he listened to what I said today, or that he has listened for the past few times that I have talked about this in the House. The fact is that he has disagreed all along with the steps that we have taken. Let me read to him a small excerpt from a letter that I received last month. It said that my officials
“have also asked that critical exports should be given priority access to the additional ferry capacity secured by the UK Government where this is not required for essential supplies.”
That request, clearly recognising the need for that capacity, came from the Cabinet Minister in the SNP Scottish Government.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
We would not have had to spend the money had the party of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) voted for the agreement. Is my right hon. Friend looking forward to the return of duty free on the ferries as much as I am?
Chris Grayling
It is very much my hope that we do reach an agreement and that duty free will not be necessary, but I am sure that if it becomes necessary, my right hon. Friend will have that opportunity. None the less, he makes a good point. To Members across this House who complain about the money that we have rightly spent on an insurance policy against a no-deal outcome, I say that the way of preventing that money being spent would have been to vote for the deal. Opposition parties have systematically refused to accept that what is before this House, and what has been before this House, is a sensible deal to deliver a sensible future partnership with the European Union. It is just a shame that they have always been unwilling to accept that.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
On 5 March, I told the Secretary of State that his settlement with Eurotunnel risked further litigation from other companies. I warned that taxpayers could face more compensation bills in the tens of millions of pounds, and I was dismissed. But I was right, and he was wrong. His Department is now facing legal action from P&O Ferries. This all flows from his decision to award a contract to Seaborne Freight—the ferry company with no ships.
The Secretary of State bypassed procurement processes to award contracts—rules that were put in place to prevent this sort of waste of public money—and awarded a contract that was in breach of UK and EU public procurement law. As a result, he made a potentially unlawful £33 million settlement with Eurotunnel, promoting P&O to take legal action. Who made the decision to bypass procurement rules? Was it the Secretary of State and does he accept responsibility? The Transport Secretary should have recognised that his Eurotunnel decision risked further litigation. Why did he dismiss my concerns, and was he poorly advised?
Yesterday, we discovered that the Department must pay around £43.8 million to cancel no longer needed ferry contracts. Given that the entire Brexit process has been characterised by uncertainty, why did the Transport Secretary not negotiate contracts that could be delayed if the Brexit date was delayed? If he had, he could have avoided this colossal waste of money. What is his estimate of the total cost to the public of his no-deal contracts? Every other week, MPs must debate the Transport Secretary’s latest costly blunder. I am afraid that this will continue for as long as the Secretary of State remains in post. This country can no longer afford the Secretary of State.
Chris Grayling
That is indicative of the fact that the Labour party and the hon. Gentleman do not believe in or support the need for this Government and this country making sure that, in all circumstances, the national health service receives the drugs that it needs. I am afraid that that is just irresponsibility on his side.
The hon. Gentleman raises various questions. He mentioned Seaborne Freight. The legal action with Eurotunnel had nothing to do with Seaborne Freight, because the contract with Seaborne Freight had been terminated several weeks before—after it had secured ships but when its principal financial backer withdrew. I did not bypass any processes. Things were done properly in accordance with Government procurement rules. They have been vetted and looked at by the National Audit Office, which has already provided one report on this. This was a collective decision by the Government to make sure that we could look after the interests of the national health service and that we took the right insurance policies in the event of a no-deal Brexit. We will continue to take the right decisions and the right insurance policies if there continues to be—I hope there will not be—a risk of a no-deal Brexit.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I do not see how the House can blame the Secretary of State for believing the Prime Minister, when she said 108 times that we were going to leave on 29 March. When her withdrawal agreement was defeated three times in the House of Commons, it would have been negligent of the Secretary of State not to have planned for a no-deal Brexit. The one thing that is for sure is that the Secretary of State cannot be blamed; maybe the Prime Minister can. Does the Secretary of State agree that a lot of people are making political points based on no evidence whatever?
Chris Grayling
That is the central point. The process was carried out properly in the context of the legal advice that was available and the needs elsewhere in Government. My Department never needed any ferry capacity; it was procured because other Departments did. If further contracts are let, it will be because of other Departments’ needs for services such as the national health service. The Opposition seem more interested in trying to score political points than in supporting the securing of drug supplies for the national health service.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On 11 February, the Secretary of State said in response to my question on ferry procurement:
“I have been absolutely clear that this procurement was dealt with very carefully by officials in my Department and in the Treasury”—[Official Report, 11 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 623.]
Although the Secretary of State may believe that this matter was dealt with very carefully, I think the rest of the world believes otherwise—that, in fact, he has reached dizzying new heights of incompetence. His latest bungle has cost an extra £43 million, on top of the £2.7 billion he has cost us so far. If P&O wins its case, how much more is the Secretary of State going to cost the taxpayer, and will that be the point at which he finally accepts that he has no choice but to resign?
Chris Grayling
The right hon. Gentleman does not believe in Brexit and he clearly does not believe in no-deal preparations. He also clearly did not listen to me previously. I have set out exhaustively in this House why we took the decisions that we did and why we responded in the way we did to the legal advice we had. We simply took steps to ensure that we were ready for a no-deal Brexit—the responsible thing to do. He might not agree with it, but that is what we have done.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to reduce the amount that has to be paid to the ferry companies involved?
Chris Grayling
That is an important point. We have paid a reduced cancellation charge, as set out in the original contracts in the case that we did not need the ferries as a result of a change in circumstance. The change in circumstance, of course, is that the potential no-deal date has moved by seven months. Nobody seriously expects that we would be paying to have ships either sailing empty or moored at the quayside for that time, but the companies incur costs—by leasing extra ships and taking extra staff— that have to be met. At the start, we negotiated a cancellation level of payments, meaning that we did not have to pay the full amount in the contract and mitigated the cost to the taxpayer of the insurance policy that we took out.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The private sector has no faith in the Department for Transport’s ability to undertake procurement properly; confidence has been lost. Is the Secretary of State concerned that his own incompetence will reduce future private sector investment in the transport sector?
Chris Grayling
I do not know what the hon. Lady is talking about because she is not being specific. She says that the private sector has lost confidence in the Department’s procurement, but that tends only to be the case if people have not won a contract.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I have continually voted for the deal, as the Secretary of State knows. The insurance policy protects exports from and imports to the UK, so I fully accept what he is saying. Will he join me in trying to get a change to the procurement rules, so that they include a substantial element of alternative dispute resolution to make the whole thing cheaper and quicker?
Chris Grayling
I regret that any big company—particularly in the case of Eurotunnel—would take a decision to pursue a legal action at such a time, when the Government are seeking to operate in the national interest. But the law is the law, and we have to fulfil it. I agree with my hon. Friend that alternative dispute resolution is a good way of resolving such matters, when it can be delivered.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The criticism is not that preparations should not have been made; it is criticism of the way in which the contracts were awarded. The Secretary of State is doing his usual trick of standing back and saying that he is the innocent bystander in this situation. Is he actually saying that he just followed the advice of his officials and signed this off, or did he intervene and overrule, especially to ensure that Seaborne Freight were awarded a contract? Or is he just going to hide behind others and say, “It was somebody else’s fault, guv—not mine,” as he did with the train timetable idea?
Chris Grayling
I can categorically say that I did not intervene in any matters relating to the decisions to let these contracts, how they were let and what the recommendations were about letting them.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my frustration with those in this House who, I think wrongly, rant that a no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic but then oppose every single step taken to try to mitigate any of the concerns that it might bring about?
Chris Grayling
The bit I do not understand is that Labour Members do not appear to understand insurance. When someone takes out a home insurance policy each year, they pay their money and they do not get it back. It costs them money, but they have the insurance to protect them against an unforeseen eventuality. We took out this insurance policy because of a change to the forecast that suggested that we might have a problem in dealing with the flow of drugs for the national health service. That was the responsible thing to do—to take out the insurance policy for the country. Labour Members might not want us to do that. They might not want to look after the interests of the national health service, but we will.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State calls it an insurance policy, but I do not know what part of an insurance policy involves paying £33 million in an out-of-court settlement to a company because of his own incompetence. That is not really a viable and prudent form of insurance policy. Is not the reality that the Government were never going to have no-deal in the first place and that this has been the mother of all smokescreens by the Government to raise the stakes in effectively playing poker with taxpayers’ money? It is a flagrant misuse of public funds, and he should at least have the grace to admit that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the reality is that cancellation fees are a standard aspect of contracts that exist between the Government and private sector suppliers to cover the costs that are legitimately created when a contract occurs? In the event that cancellation takes place, it is perfectly reasonable for those costs to be covered; otherwise people would not contract with the Government.
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It underlines one of the things that makes the business community much more concerned by a Corbyn Government than by Brexit, because Labour Members not only do not understand business—they hate business and do not believe that the Government should work with business. We hear time and again how dismissive they are of business, and this is just another example.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Do the Government’s interesting U-turns reflect a change in their attitude and policy towards Brexit itself?
Chris Grayling
Our policy has been consistent from the start: we want to leave the European Union with a deal. We will continue to work to do so but will make appropriate plans for all eventualities.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
We all knew that a no-deal exit might happen, but none of us could have said that it would definitely happen. So I do not know which is worse: whether the Secretary of State has overseen contracts that did not have the flexibility and caveats built into them to allow for that eventuality, or whether he refuses to admit that that was a mistake. Whatever it is, this combination of incompetence and arrogance is costing the taxpayer a lot of money. What assurances do we have that as we approach the October deadline and he begins over the summer to look at this process again, he will learn from the mistakes and not waste even more money?
Chris Grayling
That is precisely why these contracts had early cancellation provisions that enabled us to close the contracts down at a cost that was much lower than the full cost of the contracts.
Mr Speaker
Thank you. We come now to the business question, which is not as heavily subscribed as is often the case. Therefore, I think I can say with complete conviction that this session should finish no later than 1 o’clock and preferably long before then.
Business of the House
(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
The business for the week commencing 6 May will include:
Monday 6 May—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 7 May—Second reading of the Wild Animals in Circuses (No.2) Bill.
Wednesday 8 May—Opposition day (un-allotted half day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by motions relating to Select Committee appointments.
Thursday 9 May—Debate on a motion on acquired brain injury, followed by a general debate on the 25th anniversary of the death of John Smith, former leader of the Labour party. The subjects of these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 10 May—The House will not be sitting.
Two weeks ago we were devastated to see the pictures of the fire at Notre Dame. Many colleagues have raised with me the similar risks that face the Palace of Westminster, which is one of the most celebrated UNESCO world heritage sites. We are redoubling our efforts to progress with the restoration and renewal of Parliament. Colleagues will have seen significant work going on to protect against fires and falling masonry. I am pleased that next week, the Government will publish their response to the Joint Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill, and I hope to announce further news on the Bill shortly. In addition, next Wednesday, the House of Commons will launch a public consultation on the northern estate programme, which is a vital step in ensuring that we have decant accommodation when the major works get under way. There will be a briefing for all Members on 8 May in Portcullis House, and further details will be sent to colleagues later today.
This week is Maternal Mental Health Week, dedicated to talking about mental illness during pregnancy or after giving birth. Giving every family with a new baby the best start in life is a real passion of mine, and I know that many colleagues across all parties share a real commitment to providing better support during the first 1,001 days of a baby’s life.
Finally, a display about Baroness Thatcher’s life will be installed on the first floor of Portcullis House on Friday 3 May, and I encourage all Members to visit. As yesterday’s debate on climate change demonstrated cross-party commitment to tackling this global crisis, we should remember that she was one of the first world leaders to recognise the challenge, when she said to the United Nations in 1989:
“Of all the challenges faced by the world community… one has grown clearer than any other in both urgency and importance— I refer to the threat to our global environment.”
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business, and I wonder whether the portrait of Baroness Thatcher will be taken out of her room and put on display. Baroness Thatcher was a scientist, and we know that the science is right on climate change.
I thank the Leader of the House for the Opposition half-day next week. With debates on the Wild Animals in Circuses (No.2) Bill and on the 25th anniversary of the death of John Smith—the most amazing Labour leader and possible Prime Minister that we could not have—it feels like Opposition week, and we are grateful for those debates. Is the Leader of the House able to provide us with any further information on Whitsun or even summer recess dates? Of course, we also need an updated version of the list of ministerial responsibilities.
The business is quite light. I previously asked the Leader of the House whether we could have a debate on the Non-contentious Probate (Fees) Order 2018, so that we can have proper scrutiny of it. The mum of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) is a probate lawyer, so she is quite keen to see the order debated.
We are breaking records again, with the longest time without a Queen’s Speech. I do not know whether the Leader of the House has raised this at Cabinet meetings, but can she confirm whether the Queen’s Speech will be in June or September, as some people have mooted? The Prime Minister’s spokesperson has said that there is “no specific date” for a new Session. This is a bizarre state of affairs. I do not know of any other Government being run like this, particularly as there have been only five years since 1900 in which a Queen’s Speech has not taken place. It feels like the Government do not want to or cannot get their legislative agenda through Parliament. When is the withdrawal agreement likely to be debated again? Will that be an ordinary debate or part of a new Queen’s Speech?
We list the Prime Minister’s engagements, and I wonder whether we should now list her dinner engagements, too. There was ladies’ night this week, and someone donated £135,000. That is £19,285.71 for each of the Cabinet Ministers there. The previous donation by that donor was ruled impermissible by the Electoral Commission, but I understand that she now has leave to remain and is on the electoral register. Two former Home Secretaries and the Immigration Minister were at the event, and I hope there is no link between the two.
While Ministers were having dinner with the donor, the Department for Work and Pensions was sending misleading letters to GPs and doctors stating that their patients do not need a fit note any more when they have been found fit to work. The lack of clarity about when GPs should issue fit notes could put patients’ finances and health at risk. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who is the shadow disabilities Minister, raised a point of order because the Secretary of State said that the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners have signed off these letters, when in fact they have not. They put out a letter yesterday saying that they have not. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State on exactly what the status is of these letters to GPs, and will they be withdrawn or updated?
While Ministers were having dinner with the donor, schools and teachers were having to pick up the costs of Government cuts. An NASUWT poll has found that two out of three teachers add their own cash to squeezed school budgets by paying for classroom stationery. That is the reality: it is not the Opposition who are saying it; that is the reality from teachers on the ground. May we have a statement on why teachers and staff in schools are using their own money to keep schools running? The Government will say that they have had record investment, but that is clearly not the case on the ground.
While Ministers were having dinner with the donor, the Government were failing criminal barristers across the country. Some 95% of members of the Criminal Bar Association have threatened to begin walking out of trials and are refusing to take on new work over a pay dispute with the Crown Prosecution Service, and 84.2% of respondents to a Criminal Bar Association poll said that they were in effect working for less than the minimum wage, while the workload has increased over the past five years. May we have a statement on the criminal barristers’ pay dispute? After all, it is about the very foundation of our society.
The current Secretary of State for Transport, who was previously at the Ministry of Justice, oversaw all those cuts to the legal system, and he is the one, as we heard in the urgent question, paying out £50 million of public money, on top of the £33 million out-of-court settlement with Eurotunnel. I think we could ask schools what they could do with that money. When will we get a statement on the accountability for this waste of public money?
Last week, the Leader of the House wished everyone well in the local elections, but she did not say that there are no district or borough elections in Northamptonshire because the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has cancelled them. The seven district and borough councils would have been holding elections, but apparently the Secretary of State said that people might get confused when they move to the unitary authorities, so they will not get any elections until 2020. With no vote until 2020, people will not get a vote on the 5% increase in the council tax.
I want to take this opportunity to thank those councillors who are standing down in Walsall South: Keith Chambers, who was a councillor for Bentley and Darlaston North; Allah Ditta, for Palfrey, who may be back as a councillor to serve his community; and Eileen Russell, for St Matthews. Eileen was a teacher, and every time I go canvassing with her I find that she had taught practically everybody in St Matthews.
I do not know, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you know the significance of 29 May. That is the date beyond which the Prime Minister has to serve to ensure she is not the shortest serving Prime Minister in modern times. Just for the record, the month of May is walking month. We have been warned.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady has made some rather unpleasant insinuations and accusations, but I am sure those are a matter for her. I can absolutely assure her that none of her insinuations has any merit to it, and it is a great shame that she chooses to accuse individuals of making improper donations and to accuse people of dining while others are suffering. It is a very regrettable lowering of the tone, particularly at business questions, when Members are normally quite friendly and respectful towards one another.
To answer the hon. Lady’s specific questions, she says next week is Opposition week, but in fact the Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill is a very important part of domestic legislation. Indeed, she has herself called in previous business questions for the Government to bring it forward, so I hope she will be pleased about that.
Whitsun and summer recesses will be subject to the progress of business, as they always are. The hon. Lady asks for a list of ministerial responsibilities, and I will take that up again on her behalf. She knows that such lists are issued periodically and will be again.
On the statutory instrument on probate fees, the hon. Lady raised this in business questions on 11 April, when a debate was requested. In fact, the SI had already been debated in Committee on 7 February, and we will bring forward an approval motion in due course.
The hon. Lady asks about the length of the Session. I am sure she will understand that the purpose of the Queen’s Speech is to set the Government’s agenda for the parliamentary Session. It is available online for her reference, if she wishes to see how we are doing against the Queen’s Speech. I can assure her that our legislation is making a real difference to people right across the country. More than 40 Government Bills have already received Royal Assent, including the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018; the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018; the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018; the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018; the Space Industry Act 2018; the Tenant Fees Act 2019; the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018—she is looking a bit horrified, but they are making a positive difference to people’s lives, which is great news.
The hon. Lady asks when the debate on the withdrawal agreement Bill will be held. She will be aware that cross-party talks are under way. She will know as much as I do—possibly more—about the progress of those talks. We all hope they come to fruition very soon and that we make some progress in delivering on Brexit, which the House has committed itself to doing but has failed singularly to achieve so far.
The hon. Lady raises several other very serious points. I would encourage her to raise the question of doctors providing fit notes at Health oral questions on 7 May. On schools funding, she will know that the Government have provided significant funding for the education of our young people and that 1.9 million more children are now being taught in good or outstanding schools than in 2010, which is something we should be proud of. In particular, the number of pupils taking maths A-level has risen in each of the past eight years such that it is now the single most popular choice, which is brilliant news. On the pay dispute with criminal barristers, I understand from my excellent Parliamentary Private Secretary that the Justice Select Committee is looking at this, so there will be more to say about that soon.
Finally, the hon. Lady makes a point about Northamptonshire. It is considering merging into unitary authorities and so it would not be right to hold elections this year; they have therefore been postponed for a year, and there will be more news about that very soon, but I would like to pay tribute to everybody who is putting themselves forward for public service at the local elections and to wish everybody great success.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I add my support to what the Leader of the House has just said about the local elections. So many people take part as candidates and most of course will lose. What local councillors do is a great tribute to our democracy.
You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Prime Minister went to Brussels and, on her own devices, decided to keep us in the European Union past 12 April, until 31 October. This House has not had a chance to debate or vote on that. At the last business questions, I think the Leader of the House said that she would allow the prayer from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and that we would have a debate and vote on the negative statutory instrument. Will the Leader of the House confirm when that will happen?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to address this issue again. He may be aware that our hon. Friend asked that this debate be had once the views of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments were known, and that will indeed be the case. We will come forward with further details in due course.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. Who would have thought that there were council by-elections in England today, given that every Member on the Opposition Benches, other than the Whips, is either from Wales or Scotland? [Interruption.] I said Wales.
I thank the Leader of the House for saying that we will be proceeding with the refurbishment of this place. For most of this country, R and R means rock and roll, but in this place it means restoration and renewal. I think we will all get on down with R and R in this place soon.
I was intrigued by the Leader of the House’s response to the inquiry of the shadow Leader of the House about the Queen’s Speech. We are only a few weeks from what should be the end of this parliamentary Session, but apparently there is no intention to bring forward a Queen’s Speech. The parliamentary Session has now lasted two years and is about to enter its third. We can talk about having too much of a good thing, but probably not when it comes to this government. They have said there will be no Queen’s Speech until the withdrawal agreement is agreed, but that timeline ranges from months to weeks to about never, so I would be interested to hear her thoughts about when we can expect a Queen’s Speech.
We are acutely aware that if there is a Queen’s Speech, some loyal Members of her Majesty’s Back Benches may feel obliged to vote it down in a pique of Brexit rage, so we are looking forward to more weeks of business like this: conjured up Bills, Opposition days and—I mean no disrespect to my good friend the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns)—more Backbench Business debates. There will be no new substantial legislation and no new programme of Government. To call this a zombie Government would be to show massive disrespect to the brain-eating living dead, and the purgatory that we will now endure in the business of the House is acquiring a semi-permanent nature.
May we have debate about when a Government can no longer call themselves a Government? This Government have now lost almost half their ministerial team. They are running out of people to promote, and even more Back-Benchers are saying, “No thanks,” and want nothing more to with this shambles. I do not know how much longer that can be sustained or endured. There seems no prospect of a general election—even these zombies will not vote for a zombie Christmas to put them out of their misery, and the Prime Minister seems to limp on from week to week. Perhaps it is now time for Prime Minister “Shaun of the Dead”, and the full, unleashed zombie apocalypse to come.
Andrea Leadsom
How does one respond to that, Madam Deputy Speaker? I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman might allude to the fact that he is after Mr Speaker’s job. Had he raised that issue in the context of next week’s Bill, which will ban wild animals in travelling circuses, I could have questioned him about whether he in fact hopes to be the new ringmaster, or the new greatest showman. Since we all absolutely love Hugh Jackman—well I do anyway—I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman could completely fill his shoes, but I would be willing to give it a try, particularly because he said that if it came to a tie he would vote against Scottish independence.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Among many other things, yesterday was National Gujarat Day in India. I was privileged to be at the Indian high commission last night as we joined celebrating not only what is going on in the economic powerhouse of India but the contribution of the Gujarati people in the UK and across the world. Wherever Gujaratis have made their home, education, entrepreneurship and family life have improved, as has law-abiding behaviour. Will my right hon. Friend make time for us to debate the contribution made by Gujaratis to the United Kingdom, especially given that only in the past few days we have held excellent debates about the contributions made by Jains and Sikhs? It is time to celebrate what those in the Gujarati community have done for this country since they chose to make it their home.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes an excellent proposal, and I agree that the Gujarati community has made a significant contribution to the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to him for raising that issue on behalf of his constituents. He might wish to seek a debate in Westminster Hall so that all hon. Members can share their experiences.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week, and particularly for Thursday’s Backbench Business Committee debates on acquired brain injury—that debate is sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—and on the 25th anniversary of the death of the late John Smith, leader of the Labour party. Only last summer, I had the privilege of visiting John Smith’s graveside on the beautiful island of Iona, and I am glad that we will commemorate his loss, which was a tragedy for the Labour party and for British politics.
If we are allocated time on 16 May, we already have two debates lined up. One is the previously postponed debate on the definition of Islamophobia. That is time-specific to mark the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia, so we would be very grateful to get that debate.
When we come back after a bank holiday, we change the sitting hours so that on Tuesday the Chamber sits with Monday hours. The times in Westminster Hall are a variation of that, so instead of starting at 9.30 am, it starts at 11.30 am, but on a Monday Westminster Hall does not start at 11.30 am. That makes life difficult for those who wish to participate in those debates but have to travel from further afield, including Members from the north of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, and the south-west. May we have a look at that issue, because it is rather unfair if Members who wish to take part in debates at 11.30 am on a Tuesday following a bank holiday have to travel down the night before, as that is not the case for all Members across the House.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I am happy to look into it. Perhaps I can meet him to discuss it further. I will bear in mind his point about 16 May, as I was disappointed that the debate on Islamophobia had to be pulled due to the number of statements on that day. It would be good to see that debate reinstated, as well as the other one he mentioned.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
I know that the Leader of the House will be seized with the importance of dealing with the climate emergency we face, and she will agree that this place must show leadership in achieving net zero emissions as soon as possible. Let me make three immediate suggestions. First, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority should allow carbon offsetting as part of travel expenses; secondly, those travelling on House of Commons business should be steered towards low-carbon transport options where available, or otherwise have their carbon offset by the House authorities as part of those travel arrangements; and thirdly, IPSA should make available a one-off fund for the installation of energy efficiency measures and other clean tech in our constituency offices, so that we can decarbonise our efforts beyond here.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes excellent recommendations, and since 2010 the Government have been delivering on our ambition to be the greenest Government ever. I look forward to introducing the first environment Bill in more than 20 years, and I will certainly take seriously his recommendations about what more Parliament can do. I myself always choose to travel by broomstick since I am so frequently accused of being a witch. I find it a very low-carbon, green form of travel and I commend it to all hon. Members. We can certainly consider what more can be done.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Delays, mistakes, lost documents, extortionate application fees, and being on the receiving end of a default mode of suspicion is the experience, every single week, of my constituents in their interactions with the Home Office. Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the systemic failures of his Department and say what he will do about them?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady makes a serious accusation, and hon. Members frequently raise particular constituency problems. I am always sympathetic to individual issues, and have raised a number of them on behalf of Members with the Home Office directly. If she wishes to seek a more general discussion about the way the Home Office manages visas and so on, I encourage her to seek a Westminster Hall debate or raise the issue directly during questions to the Home Office.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Earlier this week, “radiotherapy for life” organised an excellent venture in the Palace of Westminster. My wife is a therapeutic radiographer who treats patients with cancer on a daily basis, not just in Brecon and Radnorshire but throughout the Welsh borders, and I remind Members that one in four of us will require radiotherapy treatment at some time in our life, and 40% of cancer cures are thanks to radiotherapy. May we have a debate on what more we can do to help those excellent medical professionals carry out their job and to encourage more people to enter that worthwhile profession?
Andrea Leadsom
I commend my hon. Friend for raising that issue, which gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the important work of radiographers. A number of my family have benefited from the hard work and skill used in radiography, and I am sure that is also the case for many right hon. and hon. Members here today. He will be pleased to know that we have over 3,200 more diagnostic and therapeutic radiographers compared with 2010, and NHS England has confirmed funding of more than £600 million to support the delivery of the cancer strategy in England.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
May we have a debate on the cruel impact of no recourse to public funds? One of my constituents who first came through my door in May 2015 is working all the hours she can, but cannot earn enough to make ends meet and her British-born daughter asked me why they do not have any money. No recourse to public funds is pushing families into poverty and I would like the opportunity to hold the Government to account on this issue.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises a very serious issue and she is right to do so. As ever, if she wants to write to me about a particular case, I can take it up on her behalf. Otherwise, I suggest she seeks an Adjournment debate, so she can raise the issue more generally with Ministers.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May we have a debate on Yemen? My constituent Luke Symons is being held captive by the Houthis in Sana’a. Despite the efforts of the Foreign Secretary, the United Nations and others, that is still the case and his family are becoming increasingly exasperated. The new Minister did promise a meeting before Easter with me and the family. That has not materialised, and I have not yet heard back from his office. Will the Leader of the House use her good offices to encourage that meeting to take place as soon as possible?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry to hear from the hon. Gentleman that there has been no progress on the meeting. I will certainly make contact with the Department again and remind them of that commitment. As all hon. Members know, the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe is taking place in Yemen. The UK Government are doing an awful lot to try to find a way forward. I am sure they will be very happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Leader of the House values the contribution that faith communities make to our society, so will she arrange for a Home Office Minister to urgently come to the House and explain why recent changes to the tier 5 visa system will make it more difficult for churches and temples to bring in supply ministers over the summer? Catholic churches in my constituency are very concerned—the issue is on the front page of the archdiocesan newspaper—and she will know that the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) raised this matter with the Prime Minister. When will a Minister come and explain this unnecessary and unexplained change of policy?
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly recall my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) raising the matter at Prime Minister’s questions. If I recall, the Prime Minister said that she would ensure that it was considered. I will also take steps to ensure that the Home Office are aware of this concern. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me with any specific examples, that would be helpful.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
In January, the Department for Work and Pensions announced draft regulations for compensation payments for those who have moved from universal credit and lost their severe disability premium payments. Three months on, there is no movement from the Government and in the meantime vulnerable constituents are suffering. When can we approve this much-needed support for severely disabled people?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady will be aware that the Government have sought at all times to put people with disabilities at the heart of our policy. The intention behind introducing far greater personal independence was to provide better support for people living with disabilities. Hundreds of thousands more disabled people are now in work than there were in 2010, giving them the opportunity to support their own lives. She raises a particular question about a judgment that was made. Work and Pensions questions will be on Monday 13 May. I encourage her to raise her question directly with Ministers then.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Next week is national Deaf Awareness Week, a unique campaign in that many different organisations participate, each able to provide their own work within the broad spectrum of deafness. This year’s theme is celebrating role models in education, employment, health, sport, entertainment, family, youth, technology and politics. May we have a debate in Government time on how best the Government can support deaf people to contribute even more fully, as they wish, in society as a whole?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. Deafness is incredibly difficult for people to live with and the Government have sought to take strong steps to improve quality of life, the inclusiveness of services and so on to try to support people who suffer from deafness. The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important issue and I recommend that she perhaps seek a Westminster Hall debate so that all hon. Members can share their ideas.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I do not think so cruelly of the Leader of the House. I think of her more as the Wizard of Oz. Hmm. I know she dismisses the whole issue of how long the parliamentary Session has gone on for, but in the old days we used to have a new parliamentary Session every year. The Government laid out their programme and then we debated it. Opposition and Government Members had the chance to hold the Government to account. We had a new process of starting private Members’ Bills with a new ballot, and we had a fixed number of Opposition days and days for Backbench Business. All that has gone out of the window. Today, we are sitting for the 296th day in this Session, which makes it the longest Session of this Parliament since the Glorious Revolution in 1688. I think that that is a mistake. We used to get two weeks’ business in a row. Now we get just three days’ business in a row. I know she will say, “Oh well, it is because there are all sorts of important things that you shouldn’t have to worry about,” but the truth is that we all have constituents. We like to make commitments to our constituency. Some of us have important medical appointments. I have heard of male and female Members who want to go to a screening, because they are over 50 or over 45, but have not been able to make a commitment to do that. In the interests of everybody’s health, will she please get back to a proper process of having a Queen’s Speech every year and announcing the business two weeks’ in advance?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman, if I was the Wizard of Oz, could certainly be a munchkin. He would be very welcome in that role.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. He will be aware that at the beginning of this Session we announced that it was going to be an extended Session because we had a significant amount of Brexit legislation to get through, as well as a very packed domestic legislative programme. That remains the case and we keep the end of the Session under review. He talks about announcing two weeks of business. There is no specific convention around announcing the future business. It has been the case for a very long time that the period of future business announced depends on the predictability of future business. If this House were to embrace the opportunity to deliver on the will of the people as expressed in the 2016 referendum and vote to leave the European Union, we could get back to normal. We could end the Session. We could move on. We could all start talking about something else. I therefore encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to think again about voting for the withdrawal agreement Bill when it comes back.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Perhaps the best comparison to the Government are the white walkers in the “Game of Thrones”.
May we have two statements? First, may we have a statement on what the Government are doing to try to resolve the industrial dispute between Interserve employees and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Secondly, may we have a statement on why those Interserve employees, who were due to be paid for their work in April, have not been paid? The suggestion was that their pay dates would be changed to June. That does not seem to have been the case. We now have some of the lowest-paid workers left unpaid for their work in the FCO. Does that not demonstrate that Interserve is unfit to deliver public services?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government take very seriously any private sector provision of public services and ensure at all times good value for taxpayers’ money as well as proper safeguards. We have Foreign and Commonwealth questions on Tuesday 14 May. I encourage him to ask his specific question then.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I know that we will all welcome the fact that the Transport Committee is conducting an inquiry into road safety, but it strikes me that it has been a heck of a long time since we have had a debate on road safety issues in this House. One particular concern of mine is excessive speeding and driving bans, or in many cases the lack of driving bans. I can think of some examples in north Wales—a car going at 122 miles an hour and a bike going at 138 miles an hour. I believe that they were both on single carriageway roads in rural areas. I am really concerned about this issue. Will the Leader of the House please consider having a debate on it in this Chamber in Government time?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises the incredibly important issues not only of top speeds on single-lane roads but of people speeding through towns, past schools and so on, creating dangerous situations. I absolutely encourage her to go to the Backbench Business Committee and seek a debate, so that all right hon. and hon. Members can make their views known.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma—DIPG—is the second most common type of primary high-grade brain tumour in children, affecting around 40 children each year in the United Kingdom. It is not amenable to surgery, and radiotherapy is only for palliative purposes. Only 10% of children affected survive longer than two years after diagnosis, and that prognosis has not improved in the past 40 years. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on the need to increase funding for research into DIPG, to further improve and enhance recognition and treatment of this devastating illness as we approach DIPG Awareness Day on 17 May?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. Quite often in the House, colleagues raise rare and unusual forms of cancers and other illnesses, and it is absolutely right that they do that. While we can all be proud of the significant increase in people surviving cancers in general, it is concerning, as she says, that those survival rates have not improved in many decades. Health Question Time is on Tuesday 7 May, and I encourage her to raise her issue directly with Ministers then.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
I associate myself with the concerns of the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) about clergy visas, which have also been raised by priests in my constituency. While churches are a critical part of our communities, many other aspects are also important, particularly our high streets. I commend Scran, a new café on Alexandra Parade in my constituency. It won the Scottish entertainment and hospitality award for best café in Scotland, despite being open for only seven months, which is a great achievement for its staff after all their work. Could we have a debate in Government time about the critical role of high streets and small businesses in our communities, and what we can do on business rates and VAT restrictions on those businesses to maximise the environment in which they can flourish and form an important part of our town centres, high streets and cities?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman often raises pieces of great news from his constituency. I congratulate the café he mentions for its contribution. He is absolutely right that thriving high streets and community hubs are a vital part of all our lives, and he is right to pay tribute to his constituents. The Government are determined to ensure that we do everything we can, through our advisory council and our reductions in business rates and so on, to support our high streets. I recommend that he seek a Westminster Hall debate, so that all hon. Members can share their experiences.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Leader of the House may be aware of the Parliamentary Review, which is apparently a key fixture in the political calendar; it is so important that the foreword is provided each year by the Prime Minister or the Chancellor. Staff of Alite Systems, in my constituency, have been asked to appear as experts in this year’s review and to attend a grand ball full of political dignitaries. However, the reality is that they are being asked to purchase a £3,300 advertorial. Can we have a debate on the merits of the Prime Minister and politicians associated with this publication being involved in what is, frankly, a money-making exercise?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that sounds of concern. I am sure he will have taken this up directly, in his own way, with the Prime Minister’s office. However, I think it is absolutely right that Ministers write forewords for important documents and reviews. He has not mentioned the purpose of this particular one, but I am sure he will find a way to perhaps raise a parliamentary question about its appropriateness.
World Immunisation Week
(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Rory Stewart)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered World Immunisation Week.
It is an enormous privilege and pleasure to stand here for the first time as Secretary of State, but it is a deeper pleasure to be in the Chamber talking about immunisation. Immunisation is an extraordinary story that illustrates why international development really matters, how complicated it can be, in public policy terms, to pull off, and how important it is to be able to communicate to the public and others how, in the end, preventing the terrible loss of a child from polio can be connected right the way back to scientific research, businesses, international co-operation, and very brave doctors and health workers on the ground.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May I be the first person in the Chamber to warmly welcome the Secretary of State to his new post? It is a delight sometimes to see a square peg in a square hole—if that does not sound rude, somehow or other. I warmly congratulate him on his new job.
Is not one of the most disturbing developments of recent years the fact that there are politicians around the world, in some of the most advanced societies, who preach an anti-immunisation message, which will lead to the unnecessary death of children?
Rory Stewart
Absolutely. It is grossly irresponsible and, I am afraid, profoundly and disturbingly misleading, and even ignorant, to go around doing that. It ends up stoking public paranoia and fear, and leads to the unnecessary loss of life. From the beginning, the story of immunisation—and, indeed, the story of international development—has often been about challenging public perceptions and irrational fears, and following through. There are reasons for that. The heart of what immunisation is carries within it the seeds of that challenge. The basic idea of immunisation is, of course, to make somebody sick to make them better. From the very beginning, that has involved not only challenging public fears, but something that Governments find quite difficult: taking risks and working, genuinely and collaboratively, internationally.
Although we tend to pat ourselves on the back a great deal in this country, immunisation was, of course, not a European discovery at all. It was a Chinese discovery of the early 16th century. Chinese public health officials, or their 16th century equivalents, went into villages and sneezed into people’s mouths, which rapidly reduced the mortality rate by tenfold or twentyfold. The normal mortality rate for smallpox was 20% to 30%, but remember that that reduced mortality rate under the new technique was still between 0.5% and 2%, so the procedure was very risky. Moving on with my international point, this immunisation practice arrived in Britain in about 1700.
Dr Whitford
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State and congratulate him on his new post. It was actually a bit more dramatic than that: variolation involved cutting into veins and putting in smallpox scabs. That did indeed make people ill, and then they were immune. However, modern vaccines do not do that—they are no longer based on making someone ill. There is a fallacy that the flu vaccine will give people flu, but it does not. Modern vaccination is no longer based on giving someone an illness to protect them from worse.
Rory Stewart
Moving rapidly forward, the key to this is scientific advances whereby things become safer all the time. Immunisation moved from China to Britain, and in 1799 in Britain, there was the development of vaccination—in other words, the use of cows to do this. There were then the developments of Louis Pasteur in the 1880s in France, and then of course the amazing developments in the post-war period.
Throughout all that, we see something that really matters for the Department for International Development, a Department that co-operates with other countries and puts science at its heart. This story, which in its early history links China to Britain, Britain to France and France to the United States, continues today with Gavi, the global alliance. In all this work, the same themes occur at an accelerated rate. We have, remarkably, achieved the eradication of smallpox, and we are close to a 99% success rate on wild polio. But it is on Ebola that we see most clearly today the security risks, the scientific advances, the complexity and the international co-operation.
In 2015-16, DFID, working with other international partners, began to develop—initially in Guinea, and then, through academic partnerships, in the United States and Canada—the first attempts at inoculation against Ebola. Ebola, like all such diseases, finds no borders, and that has a direct connection with justifying the international aid budget here in the United Kingdom. Perhaps the easiest way of explaining to people why we have an international development budget is to point out that had that disease taken off in Liberia and Sierra Leone, given modern transport mechanisms it would have found its way rapidly to Europe and ultimately to the United Kingdom, and people would have been dying here.
That investment, which seems quite complex, and which often—particularly in the case of diseases such as wild polio—involves spending a surprising amount of money on tracking down the last few cases, is the kind of investment that only a Government can make and only an international aid budget can provide. Why? Because this is not a normal economic case. If an individual were asked whether they wanted to spend a lot of money on inoculating themselves, they might say no, and on the basis of a traditional cost-benefit analysis, one might ask, in relation to that individual, “Why are you spending so much money?” The point is, however, that that individual is part of a community, and that community is part of a broader nation. If the disease takes off, it will begin to infect hundreds of millions of people. At that stage, significant investment in preventing someone from getting polio, for example in rural Afghanistan or Pakistan—there can be quite surprising investments, ending up with the spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars on tracking down the last few cases—is critical if it actually prevents millions of people from getting the disease.
The same applies to Ebola. The issue raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about how we deal with fears is central to the tragic death of a very courageous doctor, who was killed when bringing a vaccine and treatment to people in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He originally came from Cameroon. Part of the same story is the killing of public health nurses on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border when they were trying to inoculate people against polio.
In the solution to this, then, is human courage, and in the driver of this is human suffering, but in the broader story are things that we have to communicate. Pharmaceutical companies, which we are often nervous about, can play an incredibly positive role if properly harnessed. Merck, which is developing some of this vaccination, has a structured contract with Gavi to deliver 350,000 vaccinations, on hold, at any one time. We have reduced the price of vital drugs from $4 to $2, which means that we have access to twice as many people. We have worked out how to use the fact that Britain is the global leader in Gavi. Britain puts in 25% of the funds for this extraordinary global programme of vaccination. The second biggest contributor is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the third biggest is the Government of the United States.[Official Report, 7 May 2019, Vol. 659, c. 6MC.] All that makes our money go much further, and tied into it are the World Health Organisation and some of the best universities and researchers in the world.
In telling the story of immunisation, we are telling the story of international development, and in telling the story of international development, we are telling the story of international co-operation: the fact that researchers from China and Europe can come together; the fact that brave health workers on the ground in eastern DRC risk their lives delivering vaccines; and the fact that a single child in eastern DRC who was saved from death, with their family saved from the horror that they would have experienced, can be traced back to money spent by British taxpayers, alongside people from other countries. It has meant bringing in the private sector, the best academics in the world and, above all, brutal, bruising practicality: how do we make sure that the refrigeration is right in eastern DRC so that the vaccines survive in transport; how do we get the electricity to ensure that the vaccination works; how do we deal with communities, politics and conflict to get to the front line; and how do we understand the political and economic structures on the ground so that we can make sure that the local mullah or village chief in Afghanistan will not block the arrival of the polio vaccine in that community?
Get all those things right and we protect Britain from dying from Ebola. Get all those things right in the world of climate change and we can potentially save the planet. Get all those things right and we can show how our international aid budget can touch everyone in this country, re-energise a younger generation, and prove that if we can sometimes do less than we hope, we can do much more than we fear.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I genuinely welcome the new Secretary of State to his role. In his first two weeks as Prisons Minister he visited both the prisons in my constituency, which I thought showed a great sense of responsiveness to what was needed at the time. I hope that something along the same lines, and a close working relationship, will feature in his new role. I am also delighted that he used his first speech as Secretary of State to advance a robust intellectual defence of our aid spending, and I congratulate him on that.
We know why immunisations matter and why today’s debate is so important. Vaccines are, quite simply, a matter of life and death. Between 2 million and 3 million lives are saved every year thanks to immunisations, and in recent decades they have drastically reduced suffering caused by infectious diseases that were once commonplace. Smallpox was completely eradicated in 1977 through a global vaccination programme, and the world is now close to eradicating a second disease, polio. My own grandad contracted polio and lived with it for 27 years, and when I was growing up I heard a great deal about the impact of a disease that paralyses the people affected by it. I pay tribute to one of my constituents, Andy Gilliland, a polio survivor who has lobbied alongside the One Last Push campaigners; I am delighted to have become one of the campaign’s polio champions since he lobbied me.
Thanks to successful vaccination schemes the world over, today’s generation and our children do not have to suffer from the diseases that were all too commonplace for our grandparents. Immunisations are not only saving lives, but are a cornerstone of global health security. They are vital to the achievement of several of the United Nations sustainable development goals and to ensuring that no one is left behind. They also provide a vital gateway to wider public health services. If you are a child or parent being given a vaccination, this may be the first time that you interact with the public health system. The simple act of being immunised can boost your chances of going on to access important services such as family planning, birth registration, testing and screening, and regular healthcare. For the hardest to reach, immunisation can be the start of proper inclusion in the public health system.
I am proud that the UK’s Department for International Development is a world leader in global health. That has been possible only because of the House’s commitment to spending 0.7% of our country’s income on overseas aid and to maintaining an independent DFID. However, I want us to do more. Twenty million children around the world are still under-vaccinated. Fewer than 10% of children in the world’s poorest countries receive all the vaccinations that they need. In Africa alone, more than 30 million children under five suffer from vaccine-preventable diseases every year, and more than half a million of those cases result in death.
Sadly, in recent years global immunisation rates have stalled, and in some places have even decreased. Key barriers to full immunisation include the high prices of vaccines, and a growing movement of vaccine hesitancy. It is clear that we still have our work cut out if we are to reach all children, across the world, with the essential vaccinations that they need and deserve.
As the Secretary of State said, next year Gavi, the global vaccine alliance, will be up for replenishment at a conference hosted by the Government here in London, and this year the Global Polio Eradication Initiative is being replenished at a conference in Abu Dhabi. The UK should make significant pledges to make sure both are fully funded, and should make the pledges promptly enough to encourage other donors to do likewise. I therefore hope the Minister will use today’s debate to update the House on the Government’s replenishment plans for both of these funds.
Let me be clear, however, that replenishing funds is only one step to ensuring all children are vaccinated; we can and must do more. Gavi is leaving millions of under-vaccinated children in middle-income countries without all the vaccinations they need. That is because the scheme uses a country’s GDP to determine whether it is eligible for support. This is a crude way to assess need: a country’s GDP does not take into account the specific needs of that country and its population’s health needs. It fails to take into account the state of its health system, and, crucially, GDP measures do not take into account in-country inequalities.
Dan Carden
The Secretary of State is nodding, and I appreciate that.
This means many of the world’s poorest children are in fact living in middle-income countries with a GDP that makes them ineligible for either official development assistance or Gavi support. I hope the Secretary of State will listen to the all-party group on vaccines for all, which has called for Gavi to bring about new criteria beyond a country’s GDP.
Let me now turn to another major threat to universal immunisation coverage. It is a threat that we face both here in the UK and right across the world: vaccine hesitancy, a phenomenon that the World Health Organisation has not only warned is on the rise but has now identified as one of the top 10 major threats to global health for 2019. This year’s theme of “Protected together: vaccines work!” also points to the difficulties in this area.
Since 2014, the number of countries reporting hesitancy has steadily increased, and in 2017 only 14 countries out of 194 reported no vaccine hesitancy. In England, dangerous false stories about immunisations are routinely spread on social media. The likes of YouTube and Facebook are failing to clamp down properly on those who peddle these lies. We must take tougher action and tell the truth about immunisations because the increasing refusal of vaccines has been described by the head of NHS England as a “growing public health timebomb.”
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s recently published online harms consultation needs to include the beefing up of this, and that Facebook and others must be held responsible if they allow such anti-immunisation scare stories to be included on their platforms, because, as we are seeing in America, this is risking and costing lives?
Dan Carden
I agree with my hon. Friend wholeheartedly. We must take tougher action to tell the truth about immunisations, and we need to act fast with global partners if we are to avert the destructive potential of this. According to UNICEF, half a million British children are not vaccinated against measles, and in 2018 there were 966 cases of measles across the country, more than double the number in 2017. This is a worrying and sharp rise that requires our attention.
That is why my colleagues in Labour’s health team have committed to a vaccination action plan that includes getting tough with the big social media companies that are providing a platform that is fuelling a new public health crisis. Labour wants to see the £800 million of public health cuts reversed, more health visitors recruited to provide proper health advice backed by science to parents and GPs given the investment they need to drive up vaccination rates.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about the massive positive impacts of public health campaigns, and I am reminded of the great public health drive in Glasgow to eradicate tuberculosis from the city in the 1960s, a public awareness campaign that was a huge success. But is my hon. Friend aware that this creeping cynicism around the positive benefits of immunisation is a critical national emergency, and does he agree that it is worth exploring making it a criminal offence not to immunise our children? Perhaps we should explore whether that is a necessary step given the critical nature of this.
Dan Carden
I agree with my hon. Friend. This is absolutely critical, and our discussion shows the importance of raising awareness in such debates.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making some extremely good points. Does he agree that it is also important to be positive and show the huge impact of past vaccination programmes? In the 1940s, diphtheria killed 3,500 children a year in the UK, but it now kills approximately zero. Showing what has happened in the past and how beneficial it has been for our children will, combined obviously with other measures that the hon. Gentleman has referred to, give us the confidence that vaccination is indeed the way forward to protect our children.
Dan Carden
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and the figures in graphs and elsewhere in documentation show the remarkable impact that vaccinations have had. We must carry that story forward.
We know from this experience how vital universal public services are for ensuring that everyone in society, regardless of their income, can realise their right to a healthy life. The Labour party founded our national health service. We are today, like then, committed to a health service that is that publicly owned and publicly run and with universal access. Universal health systems are the building block for everything else: without them we cannot reach full immunisation coverage; without them we cannot protect all the population against the national security threat of disease; without them we cannot reach the poorest and most marginalised in society with the care they need; and without them we cannot invest properly in the health of everyone equally, or deliver the fullest benefit for our society or our economy. And crucially, without universal public health systems, countries cannot fight the soaring inequality that now exists the world over.
There is no greater public asset here in the UK than the NHS, and so too around the world people value and look to the founding principle of the UK’s NHS: health care available to all, regardless of wealth. And so I want to briefly mention two important commitments that the Opposition have made to how we would deliver aid and development differently.
Aid is, or at least should be, delivered on the basis of poverty reduction. The Labour party has committed to a second, dual goal—to use aid to tackle inequality, too—and we know there is no better way of bringing about greater equality than universal public services in health, education and other key services. It is a tragedy that while we have our national health service—our own best-loved institution—created by the post-war Labour Government, this Government sometimes use UK aid to export to developing countries the kind of botched privatisation models that have done so much damage in the UK in recent years, instead of helping those countries to secure their own universal public health services.
I have a simple message: as DFID Secretary I would use UK aid to work alongside communities and civil society groups across the global south who are fighting for their own universal public services, and I would use DFID’s resources to work in partnership with their Governments to build and strengthen them.
World Immunisation Week is a chance to celebrate the work being done to protect people from vaccine-preventable diseases and to highlight the challenges ahead and the collective action needed. This international awareness week promotes the core message that the immunisation of every child is vital to prevent diseases and protect life. Immunisations are one of the most successful and cost-effective global health interventions of our time. Delivering immunisations gives all of us in this House, as custodians of the UK’s important position as a leader in global health, the simple, remarkable ability to save countless lives.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to welcome my very good friend the Secretary of State for International Development to his new role. We all know what a tremendous background he brings to this role, with vast international experience beyond the majority of us, and we all know the dedication he has put into his previous ministerial roles, and we are certain that we will see this reflected in what he does with international development. I am delighted to see him in his place. I am also delighted by the further progress of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who is now Secretary of State for Defence. She did a terrific job at DFID, and I am really pleased to see her in a post for which I think she has always been destined, bearing in mind her background. She will do a great job there. It was a great pleasure to work with her.
Not unusually for me, I find myself largely in agreement with the speeches that have been made from both sides of the House. I should like to say little bit about a topic for which I had responsibility in the Department until relatively recently and to offer thanks to colleagues who have been so effective on this and who will give great support to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development.
First, a personal word: as some hon. Members know, I have a very personal connection with vaccination, which I never fail to bring out. My dad, who is watching this debate courtesy of the great medium of television, is a doctor. When I was a small boy, it was his responsibility as my doctor to provide me with polio jabs. In the old days in the United Kingdom, we provided jabs for polio, not sugar lumps. Yes, I am that old. As my dad knows, we are talking serious needles; not the sort of thing that children get these days. These were really serious needles that bubbled away in the steriliser in the corner of the surgery, and they absolutely terrified this small boy. My dad had to chase me round his room. I would hide under the desk, eventually I would be brought out to see all the things that were meant to entertain me as he put the needle in. Then he did it. The lesson I learned from that was that if my dad, who loves me very much, could inflict a degree of pain on his crying little boy, there had to be a really, really good reason for it. And of course there was. Like the grandfather of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), I was spared polio, as were the vast majority of my generation and subsequent generations, because of that vaccination. That first early introduction to vaccination and needles, and the visits with my dad to hospitals that I thoroughly resented for many years—until I did a stint at the Department of Health—have stayed with me, so vaccination matters to me. It is an important thing.
My father subsequently got involved with Rotary International, and any discussion of vaccination and global health has to include a mention of the contribution that Rotary has made to the near-eradication of polio. The United Kingdom remains absolutely supportive of that policy, and we must not get so close to the line but then fail to drive it over. The contribution of Rotary International and its members in this country must always be recognised, and we should thank them most sincerely.
Jeremy Lefroy
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I would like to pay tribute to Rotary as well. I remember when my family was living in Tanzania and my daughter was born there, she was vaccinated against polio through a programme sponsored and funded by Rotary International, as were millions of other children in that part of the world. Rotary deserves huge credit for what it has done, and I thank the Rotary clubs across the United Kingdom for the money they have raised for that programme.
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks for all of us in the House in thanking Rotary.
I also want to thank one or two more people while I am on my feet. The first is the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on vaccinations for all, who will no doubt speak later in the debate. She makes a tremendous contribution on these matters in the House on all available occasions. I also want to thank Danny Graymore, who heads up the global funds team and is our senior DFID rep in Geneva, for all the work that he puts into this, as well as the team of colleagues in DFID who work so hard on this. I offer my deep appreciation to them for all that they have provided for me in the last couple of years.
I also want to thank Gavi’s chief executive, Seth Berkley, who does a remarkable job, and Henrietta Fore at UNICEF and her team in the UK. They do a tremendous job in vaccinating and in providing the vaccines and the basis for what both Front-Bench speakers have talked about. UNICEF vaccinates half the world’s children and saves 3 million lives a year. Since Gavi came into existence, it has vaccinated some 700 million children and 10 million lives have been saved, for the reasons that have been set out. We could not do without them.
Nor could we do without the health workers who are out there doing their job but, as those on both Front Benches have mentioned, they are under increasing threat. A specific example is Pakistan, where work is being done on polio. There has been a string of attacks in recent years, with seven policemen being killed in Karachi recently while trying to protect polio workers. In February 2015, four kidnapped polio workers were found dead near Qetta. In June 2015, 15 were killed by a suicide bomb outside a polio vaccination centre. Four were killed in 2014 in Qetta, and in 2012, five were killed in Karachi and Peshawar. This is not just about the threat of intimidation to health workers in different parts of the world; it does actually result in their injury and death. We in this country should always remember what it is like in some of those places. We should remember how important those people consider their work to be and why they consider it to be of such benefit to their communities that they would take such extraordinary risks.
I am proud of the part that the United Kingdom plays in Gavi, the global vaccine alliance. It brings together the private and public sectors in a shared goal of creating equal access to new and underused vaccines for children in the world’s poorest areas. It has strategic goals, which are all of importance to the United Kingdom and illustrate why we support it. The first is to ensure equitable uptake and coverage of vaccination. The second is to ensure effectiveness and efficiency as part of a strengthened health system. The third is to be part of the sustainability of a national vaccine programme.
At this point, I want to comment on what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton said about DFID’s role in health systems abroad. This cannot all be done purely through the support of public sector health systems. The combination of private and public in health is absolutely vital, but he can be reassured that the determination of the UK Government and DFID is to strengthen universal healthcare systems. Money and support for healthcare must go into that, but there is a combination of public and private, as was made clear at a meeting with UNICEF in New York in September. It is a partnership, but this does not contradict the fundamental principle on which I am sure the hon. Gentleman and I are united.
Jeremy Lefroy
Does my right hon. Friend agree that state co-ordination is sometimes needed, but that there are different systems? If we look at Zambia, we see that the Churches provide tremendous health coverage throughout the country, but they do so in co-ordination with the state so that everybody knows, as far as is possible, that they have coverage locally. Clearly, they have a long way to go, but they do a tremendous job in co-operation with the Government there.
Alistair Burt
Absolutely, and I think that that is the model to take forward for the development of healthcare systems. We need to bear in mind the nature of that relationship, because it will be absolutely key.
I am proud of the United Kingdom’s support for Gavi. We are its largest donor, and we are
“currently responsible for 25% of its budget. The UK has committed £1.44 billion to Gavi from 2016 to 2020, including funding to its innovative finance mechanisms. This investment fully delivers on the UK commitment to immunise 76 million children and save 1.4 million lives by 2020.”
I am grateful to the team for the briefing it gave me for the meeting with the all-party group, which I have kept. Credit where it is due: that was a quote from the Department’s own briefing. The replenishment conference is coming up. There was very little I could say about that when I was a Minister, but speaking from the Back Benches, I can say to the Secretary of State that I am sure we will sort it out and I hope he will be really, really generous. He can be absolutely sure that I will be on his tail if we do not make a serious commitment to Gavi, because it really delivers. Seth Berkley delivers for us, and the visit to Bognor Regis in the past few months when he saw the work being done here was really important. I hope the Secretary of State will bear that in mind.
Vaccination does more than the obvious function of preventing diseases in children. Its background, not only in the health system but in the development of countries, is fundamental. A healthy child goes to school, is able to learn, and grows into a productive adult. Unless that basis for immunisation is clear, so much development work is stymied right at the beginning. Immunisation is part of a sustainable, integrated health system. The reckoning is that the overall impact is that every £1 spent on immunisation leads to a £16 saving in terms of subsequent health care bills and people’s inability to interact effectively in the community.
Before I deal with the threats, I want to remind the House of what this is all about, and I will talk briefly about measles, because measles outbreaks have suddenly returned in recent times. The tendency in the United Kingdom is to accept measles as a rudimentary childhood suffering that is easy to go through, so the misery of measles is forgotten. A recent piece in Forbes Magazine talked about the problems of anti-vaccination and included a quote from Roald Dahl. His oldest daughter, Olivia, died of measles in 1962 at the age of seven, and the article quotes his words:
“one morning, when she was well on the road to recovery, I was sitting on her bed showing her how to fashion little animals out of coloured pipe-cleaners, and when it came to her turn to make one herself, I noticed that her fingers and her mind were not working together and she couldn’t do anything. ‘Are you feeling all right?’ I asked her. ‘I feel all sleepy,’ she said. In an hour, she was unconscious. In twelve hours she was dead. The measles had turned into a terrible thing called measles encephalitis and there was nothing the doctors could do to save her.”
That is how real it is. When we talk about vaccination and take on those who are concerned about it, that is the reason.
Measles has largely died out in the United Kingdom, but it is coming back in different places, and it will come back here unless we challenge it. The United States declared measles eliminated in 2000, but there have been 695 cases this year, mostly concentrated in three outbreaks and mostly concentrated in small tightly knit communities. The rise in measles cases in both the developing world and the developed world is really frightening, and it must be challenged.
When I was first made aware of the rising figures, I had a discussion with my ministerial team about how to deal with it. I have to say that I was pretty gung-ho and thought, “We’ve really got to take this on aggressively.” The team, to their credit, tried to scale me down from that, saying, “There are different reasons for the threat to vaccination, and you need to handle them differently.” That was good advice, and my sense is that the challenges are as follows. The first is the straightforward matter of incomplete coverage—the millions of children who do not currently get vaccinated. Gavi needs to look at where it is developing its resources, but it is committed to go to the poorest areas, and we need to keep that up. We need to deal with the areas where coverage is not great, but there are other threats, too.
We can divide anti-vaccination into several categories. First, there are religious reasons. I am unaware of any tenet in any major religion that suggests that vaccination is inherently wrong. It is quite the reverse. As a practising Christian, I believe that one of the revelations of God has been to give us the skills to discern what harms us and what helps us. That is where science and medicine come in, and vaccination is part of that. We have been given the skills to be able to help our God-given children and keep them healthy.
No major religion contradicts that, but sects in various religious denominations are against it. When we do get an outbreak, such as in an Orthodox Jewish community in New York, it runs around quickly. The United States has seen recent outbreaks in the Orthodox Jewish community, among Slavic migrants, in the Amish community in Ohio and the Somali community in Minnesota, because measles spreads quickly in a small, closed group and then it affects anyone else they come into contact with outside who has not been immunised. The United Kingdom should urgently work with religious leaders worldwide and say, “Please make a declaration to ensure that none of your leaders—none of those who promote a faith under your auspices—are in any way in any doubt about the value and importance of vaccination and say that there is no religious tenet against it.”
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the terrible measles outbreak in Israel? Many rabbis, including those in Orthodox communities, have come forward to point out that the Torah talks about the preservation of one’s own life and the lives of others. They are trying to counter what has almost become a habit, rather than something that is based on holy writings.
Alistair Burt
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I have not been able to discern whether a poor El Al flight attendant who fell seriously ill in the past couple of weeks has recovered, but I am aware of that outbreak. Religious leaders, rather than Government figures or civil spokespeople, need to make the case. We can deal with the religious factor by understanding the fears and trying to descale them so that no one can go to a religious group and find some reason to campaign against vaccination.
A second reason might be conspiracy, which has certainly been an issue in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where those trying to disrupt the vaccination movement say that it is western influenced and designed to harm. All that can be done in response to that is more and more information and transparency, and Governments do have a responsibility there. It must be made absolutely clear that health workers are not to be used for any other purpose, so that there is no risk of any political contamination. We are aware that it has happened, but it must not happen again. If health workers are not to be targets, they must purely be health workers.
Thirdly, there are medical reasons why a vaccination may not be appropriate for a particular child. These are exceptionally rare, and there is scientific evidence to back that up and it must be handled purely through the medical profession. We have been asked this past fortnight to listen to the science. Whether on climate change or anything else, we should listen to the science. When it comes to medical reasons why vaccination may not be right, listen to the science and recognise how incredibly rare those reasons are. Someone is much more likely to protect their child by vaccination and immunisation than not.
The last reason is misinformation, which is really scary. This is part of the phenomenon of people trying to pull down authoritative sources of information—the mainstream media, experts or whatever. If someone wants to disregard something to try and minimise its impact, it is becoming popular and easy to claim that their own personal experience or anecdotal experience somehow trumps what people are being told by those from scientific backgrounds who are making a serious case. We are seeing an awful lot of that.
The issue follows from the false, discredited and debunked information about the MMR vaccine that came from a doctor in the United Kingdom some years ago, which is used by so many. The issue seems to be extremely prevalent in the United States, where picking up ideas that have little foundation but can be used to inflame people seems to be almost a way of life for some. It is seriously dangerous and anti-expert. It is based on a false dilemma between liberty and the state, which we can see creeping into arguments here on social media. It is all highly dangerous.
Now, there may be other ways of combating the other problems that I have mentioned, but I am afraid that we do have to be aggressive on misinformation. We have to be vigorous and gung-ho. It is nonsense, and we must be clear about taking it on. False information and those who provide it must be exposed, and those who have fallen victim to it must be understood and given as much information as possible.
I recently saw a good piece on the “Victoria Derbyshire” programme in which a couple who were uncertain about vaccinating their child were given the opportunity to question people about it and, in the end, they came to a different conclusion. It shows how worried people are, and we should understand that, but there are answers to their worries and we should not be afraid of making sure people have those answers. We must be clear about those who are deliberately spreading misinformation, who are connected to arguments that have no basis or who are trying to bring together issues of liberty and public health, which is particularly prevalent in the United States, where almost anything provided by the state is somehow suspect—a view I do not hold, as most in this House know. Public health programmes are good, and those who say it is all the state trying to control people are just wrong. That has to be challenged by every means possible.
Immunisation is good. It works and it has proved itself. It is one of the building blocks of world strength and world health and we lose it at our peril. Recent years have taught us that, just because we think something has become part of mainstream culture and is accepted by everyone, it does not mean that the argument does not have to be made over and again. We have lost valuable things in recent years by not vigorously making the argument for them because we thought everyone understood the argument—I will not go into detail—but we are not going to lose the argument on health and immunisation. If we do so, we would put ourselves at risk. We know it is safe and we know it is good, so let us not leave it to others to make the argument. Let us make the argument ourselves. I know that I can completely count on the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to do that job, and I know that I can rely on this House to do the same.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I welcome this debate in Government time on such an important topic as World Immunisation Week. It is just a wee bit tragic that it has been scheduled today, clashing with local government elections, and that therefore the Chamber is so empty when I am sure that many Members would have liked to have taken part.
This topic is of particular interest to me, and I am glad to see in the Chamber other members of the all-party group on vaccinations for all, which I chair. As the Secretary of State mentioned, the history of vaccines goes back long before Jenner to the Chinese empire. Indeed, it was common practice to carry out variolation in the Ottoman empire, too. There is documentation from travellers and the East India Company going back 100 years before Jenner.
At that time, smallpox epidemics were common and a third of people who caught it died. It is hard to get our heads around those numbers. Smallpox left survivors very scarred and damaged, and Jenner followed up the observation that milkmaids were noted for having beautiful skin. Of course there was the fallacy that milkmaids bathed in milk, and there is all the imagery of Cleopatra having bathed in milk, but it is simply that milkmaids tended to catch cowpox, which protected them from smallpox. The word “vaccine” comes from the Latin for “cow.”
Smallpox was declared eradicated across the world in 1980, and we are within touching distance of eradicating polio. Eradicating a disease from the world is an incredible achievement and could not be done using any tool other than vaccination.
The vaccinations for polio came in after five huge epidemics, which were visible here in the UK, between 1945 and 1960. Instead of about 500 or 600 young children a year being affected by polio, the figure went up to 5,000 or 6,000, with about 750 deaths. We got the Salk vaccine, the injectable vaccine described by the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). I was not quite born when that vaccine came in, and I was lucky enough to get the Sabin oral sugar cube version. The oral vaccine had the huge advantage of being able to vaccinate large numbers of children very quickly and, because it was excreted in faeces, it spread protection within communities—it was an accelerated way of carrying out vaccination.
The Global Polio Eradication Initiative was established in 1988 and, as has been mentioned, the Rotary Club played a huge part in the UK. At that time, there were still 35,000 cases worldwide every year. Some 2.5 billion children were vaccinated under the programme, and at least 10 million cases of paralysis have been prevented.
Last year, there were 35 cases, and as we have heard, they were predominantly in difficult areas on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where a friend of mine worked for UNICEF for several years—the area is very challenging. The other area where we are not sure what is happening is northern Nigeria, because it is difficult to get data. There has always been this problem of warzones, of extreme poverty and even of communities that we hardly know exist.
The last case of wild polio in the UK was in 1984, and at that time we changed back from the oral vaccine to the injectable vaccine because it uses a dead strain that is not attenuated or weakened and cannot induce polio. As has been said, the UK can be proud of being the lead contributor to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and to the global health fund—the UK is a big supporter of many of these programmes.
The last 10 years, which are being called the decade of vaccines, have seen at least 20 million lives saved, and vaccination is the single most successful health intervention ever. People will say that that is clean water, a civil engineering intervention that does bring health, but if we look at the returns and the lives saved, vaccination is even more successful.
The problem is that uptake is falling. We are lucky in Scotland to have managed to keep the uptake of childhood vaccinations above the World Health Organisation’s recommended level of 95%, which is critical to creating community protection for children who are very young, for babies who are only a few months old and are not yet vaccinated, and for those who are vulnerable for various reasons and cannot be vaccinated.
Unfortunately, the uptake of many childhood vaccines has dropped below 95% in England because of what is described as “vaccine hesitancy”. As has been mentioned, the UNICEF report refers to about half a million children in the UK being unvaccinated. That is a dangerously large pool of children and, now, of young people and perhaps even middle-aged adults who are exposed to catching these diseases.
People often put that down to the anti-vax campaign but, actually, Public Health England’s research suggests that the situation is much more complicated. When it surveyed parents, it found that only quite a small percentage had a strong anti-vaccination feeling. There are also issues of complacency and of access, which we need to tackle so that we shrink it down, as well as the need to tackle head on the fake news we see on social media.
There is complacency simply because vaccines are a victim of their own success. People do not see the awful impact of these conditions. As the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire mentioned, people think of measles as trivial, like a 24-hour flu—they have forgotten what it means. People do not see many cases of polio, but I remember it from my childhood. I was lucky enough to visit vaccination projects in Ethiopia with Results UK. When we pulled in to get petrol, we saw a young man, aged about 30, with obvious flaccid paralysis from polio, and it hit me between the eyes that that is something that we do not see. If people saw the results of polio, they would never think of withholding the vaccine from their children.
We think that there are not great risks from infectious diseases and that antibiotics will treat them, but air travel brings the risk of pandemics. The Secretary of State mentioned Ebola, and when we had a huge Ebola outbreak a few years ago, work was started on a vaccine that has been used to prevent recent outbreaks from reaching the levels we saw in Sierra Leone five or six years ago.
It is important that we realise that antibiotics are not a solution. They do not work on viruses. The only option to prevent dangerous viruses is to use vaccines, and there is also increasing antibiotic resistance.
On access, as the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, across the world we are patting ourselves on the back for the fact that in poorer countries 85% of children are getting the basic vaccines. However, we have stalled—the figure is not climbing and has been at that level for a long time. When the all-party group produced its report on vaccination for all in the developing world, I was shocked to find that only 7% of children in such countries are given the full WHO 11 vaccines.
As global players prepare their next strategies and funding plans, and with the eradication of polio on the horizon, this is a time to step back and think about how we are going to help, across the world, to eliminate more of these diseases. We need to aim for the fully immunised child. We need to come up with strategies to deal with remote areas and warzones, and research is a crucial part of that. It is brilliant to read that the trial of a new malaria vaccine is beginning in Malawi. It is expected to be only 40% successful, which is quite weak for a vaccine. However, malaria is so widespread that it causes more than 400,000 deaths a year, so making 40% of children immune to it will, along with the other manoeuvres and actions being undertaken, such as the use of nets and anti-mosquito treatments, help to bring that number of deaths down.
We face access issues here in the UK. A busy parent may have several children and although the first baby may get all its immunisations, the second and third might not. That can be an issue in some of the religious communities that tend to have large families. Someone who is having their seventh, eighth or ninth baby may struggle to look after the others and get the new baby to its vaccinations. These people need easy access to their GP, nurse or health visitor, and those people need to have time to answer parents’ concerns. We are talking about one of the first big decisions a parent will make about their child and they are seeing all this swilling anti-vaccine rhetoric on social media. They need to be able to ask questions, and then not to be patronised or dismissed, but to have their questions answered.
Although uptake in Scotland is high, at above 95%, when we drill down into the situation, we also see variations in areas of deprivation and in religious and cultural communities. We are therefore not complacent, and Scotland is embarking on a vaccination transformation programme, because keeping the rate high, and indeed improving it, will require concerted action. Sometimes this is about policy decisions. When the meningitis ACWY vaccine was introduced for 14-year-olds at school, Scotland carried out a four-year catch-up, immunising 14 to 18-year-olds, whereas Wales did a two-year catch-up. Sadly, the advice in England was that teenagers, young adults and university students could go to see their GP. At a recent event, it was reported to me that uptake was only 40%—after all, how often are teenagers at their GP? This is not a concerted way to proceed. I do not know whether the decision was based on cost, but analysis of the cost-effectiveness of vaccines shows that they are so cost-effective as to justify any process that will actually raise uptake, even home visits to try to help a busy mother to get her babies vaccinated.
The third thing to mention is the anti-vax campaigns. As I say, Public Health England surveys suggest that we are talking about a relatively small proportion of people, and the situation does seem largely to stem from the MMR—measles, mumps and rubella—vaccine. The vaccine is 97% effective, but uptake fell dramatically after Andrew Wakefield’s paper in 1998. He has since been struck off the medical register and his research was completely discredited, yet he is being given a platform in the US again as President Trump is promoting this in America. While uptake has improved, a cohort of teenagers were not given the MMR vaccine when they were babies and they are particularly vulnerable.
As Members have heard, people think that measles is trivial, like a 24-hour flu, yet 2.5 million people died from it in 1980. The figure came down to 73,000, its lowest point, in 2014, but last year the number of worldwide deaths from measles had increased to 110,000. Sadly this year, by only 2 May, 112,000 young people worldwide have lost their lives to measles. It is literally the most contagious disease, and if there is a local outbreak, 90% of unvaccinated people will get infected—it is unavoidable. People are incredibly infectious before there is a rash and the disease is spread simply in the air. During a recent outbreak in America, it was found that patient zero had infected more than 40 people before he even knew he had measles. Last year, we saw 82,000 cases in Europe and 72 deaths. There will a similar number of encephalitis cases, as was mentioned by the former Minister, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. The disease leaves children with brain damage, and it can leave them blind and deaf. Those are not minor sequelae, but life-threatening things.
In England, thankfully, there have not been any recent deaths due to the disease, but whereas in 2017 there were 259 cases, that had increased nearly fourfold to almost 1,000 last year. In Scotland, we had only two cases, and they involved people who had been travelling outwith the UK. That did not start an outbreak, because we had 97% uptake of the vaccine, so community protection was in place and there was no opportunity for the disease to spread. Community protection is crucial. I know that people use the term “herd immunity”, which sounds awful, because it sounds like animals, but we are talking about community protection that allows us to protect our babies under one year old and our most vulnerable.
Even the uptake of the meningitis vaccine, something parents were campaigning for in this House just two years ago, is now only at 92.5% in England. Parents have an image of meningitis. They may know people who have had it and they will certainly have seen the appalling photographs of a child who is dying of meningitis and meningitis sepsis. In Scotland, the uptake is still at almost 96%, but we face the same issues of anti-vax sentiment; for many vaccines, we also see a drifting down of a few points every year. We cannot allow that to become critical, so we need open dialogue with parents. We must not push their concerns under the carpet, as that simply breeds a greater sense of conspiracy and leaves them open to these terrible social media campaigns.
Just two years ago, the O’Neill report on antibiotic resistance highlighted how crucial antibiotics will be in the future in fighting antibiotic resistance. At the moment, antibiotic resistance causes 700,000 a year, but it is estimated that we will have 10 million a year if we reach a truly post-antibiotic world. As a surgeon, I can tell the House that many procedures simply cannot be carried out if we do not have the ability to protect with antibiotics.
Most antibiotics have a lifespan from development to resistance of less than 10 years—the longest have a lifespan of less than 20 years before we see resistance—yet we are using vaccines that are 70 or 90 years old and do not have resistance. It is crucial that we tackle this anti-vax idea if we are ever to tackle antibiotic resistance. This is particularly the case for respiratory infections, because that is where the greatest use of antibiotics is. There are three ways in which vaccines will help us on this. The first is simply by preventing a drug-resistant infection in the first place. Secondly, they will also prevent the secondary infections from viruses and other conditions, where, again, we are using antibiotics. Thirdly, they will help in respect of viruses, where antibiotics are not going to work in the first place. It is important to realise that vaccines are absolutely central to that battle.
We now see vaccines preventing cancer. A study in Scotland looked at the effect of HPV, partly because we had such good uptake of the HPV bivalent vaccine, and also because our cervical screening started at 20. That study has shown an 85% reduction in precancerous changes on the cervix, which means we are on the road to seeing a really dramatic fall in cervical cancer. Having watched one of my friends lose her daughter to cervical cancer at 28 just a few years ago, I know that eliminating that disease is worth it in its own right.
We will be moving on to directing vaccines against cancer itself, and there is huge potential in vaccines to be realised as we tackle other diseases and scourges, such as multi-drug-resistant TB, but we will realise that potential only if we can tackle the anti-vaccination campaign and re-establish real confidence among parents, not just here but around the world.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who is a fellow member of the all-party group on vaccinations for all.
Let me start by giving some context. Vaccinations have been around for a long time, with evidence showing that the first form of vaccination for smallpox occurred in China approximately 500 years ago, but it was not until 1796, when English physician Edward Jenner published evidence showing that his smallpox vaccine was effective, that vaccinations in the west really took off. Since that time, vaccinations have been hugely successful in preventing numerous infectious diseases. In the past 100 years, we have seen vaccinations successfully prevent diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus, anthrax, cholera, plague and typhoid, and more recently polio, measles, mumps and rubella.
Many of us will remember receiving vaccinations at school and thinking nothing of it, but the diseases that those vaccinations prevented could have killed us had we been born decades previously. It is safe to say that immunisation has stood the test of time as one of public health’s most cost-effective interventions, saving up to 3 million lives every year. It is estimated that between 2011 and 2020, vaccines will avert an estimated 20 million deaths and 500 million cases of illness.
Since its inception in 2000, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, has contributed to the immunisation of more than 690 million children and helped to prevent more than 10 million deaths by virtue of its ability to acquire vaccines in bulk and to enable access to those vaccines by the world’s poorest countries. The United Kingdom is one of Gavi’s global partners, and through it UK funding has helped to immunise 76 million children against vaccine-preventable diseases, saving 1.4 million lives over the past 19 years.
There is no doubt that without sustained access to vaccines, disease outbreaks and pandemics would be inevitable. With the annual global cost of a severe pandemic being roughly $570 billion, or approximately 0.7% of global income, vaccinations are the best financial option available for fighting pandemics. The World Health Organisation has estimated that between 2001 and 2020 the economic benefits of vaccination could reach up to $820 billion.
On top of the distribution of and process of providing vaccines, and as well as the benefit of patients’ physical immunity to various diseases, there is also a long-term benefit in the establishment of strong primary and public healthcare systems in places where vaccinations are a new introduction in the fight against diseases. With my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), I was recently part of a delegation to Ethiopia organised by RESULTS UK to look into how Ethiopia is tackling the prevention of tuberculosis. I was impressed by the health system there, in particular the excellent health extension workers, who provide immunisation in the more rural parts of Ethiopia, such as Bishoftu. They store vaccinations in solar-panelled refrigerators. The public health message conveyed by these dedicated health extension workers and community health workers was clearly working well, as were the distribution hubs that delivered the medicines to the outposts in the most efficient manner possible. The people of Ethiopia can be very proud of how they have reduced infectious diseases, and I am sure that they will strive to eradicate infectious diseases altogether.
Huge progress has been made in the virtual eradication of certain diseases through immunisation. For example, cases of wild polio have been reduced by 99.9% since 1988, down from 350,000 cases in 125 countries to just 33 cases in just two countries in 2018. Despite that, millions of children still miss out on basic vaccines, and one in 10 children around the world still receive no vaccines at all. According to figures from the advocacy organisation RESULTS UK, only 7% of children in the poorest 73 countries receive all 11 of the WHO-recommended vaccines, and almost 40% of unvaccinated children—approximately 8 million of them—live in fragile humanitarian settings.
The success of the prevention of infectious diseases through vaccinations has meant that the world has become a healthier, more prosperous place to live. As infant mortality decreases, there is a risk in presuming that immunisation is a done deal and that political and financial investments could be put to better uses. We must make sure that we are not complacent in assuming that the problem has been solved, as complacency would be incredibly detrimental and risks putting millions of lives at risk. We are already seeing immunisation rates fall across many countries, as they reduce the funding for immunisation once they reach a certain level of reduction of infectious diseases, only to see rates then rise and so have to start again from the beginning.
We have the knowledge, resources and expertise to prevent millions of unnecessary deaths every year, yet in Africa alone more than 30 million children under five suffer from vaccine-preventable diseases every year, and more than half a million of those cases result in death. Disparities in immunisation coverage and equity across and within countries mean that children from the poorest families, from the most remote areas and from marginalised groups continue to be left behind, with only 7% of children in the poorest 73 countries receiving all 11 of the WHO vaccines.
For example, there is still a problem in getting vaccines to children who belong to pastoral, rural communities, because despite some of the best and most ingenious refrigeration techniques, it proves difficult over the last mile to keep the vaccinations at the right temperature so that they do not degrade. It is now essential that global immunisation efforts prioritise reaching those who are left behind and currently receive no vaccines at all. These children must be reached with vaccines and other health interventions to ensure that we meet the sustainable development goals and that the UK meets its “leave no one behind” targets.
A changing world means that a large proportion of under-immunised children are located in middle-income countries or fragile and conflict-affected states. We must ensure that our aid investments are fit for purpose and can reach these children, no matter where they are. The UK should be focused on reaching the poorest children, not the poorest countries. We must also not forget that malnourished children do not respond as well to vaccinations.
To ensure that vaccines are most effective, investment in infrastructure is vital. Strong and functioning health systems are required to deliver vaccines. It is essential that at the same time as investing in immunisation systems, we invest in strengthening health systems. This will enable more vaccines to reach more children and allow for the easier introduction of new vaccines. Gavi must continue and increase its investment in its work to strengthen health systems, which must be tailored to meet countries’ needs, and the UK must ensure that its bilateral work on health systems strengthening complements Gavi’s work. Investing in immunisation delivers on impact beyond immunisation to the whole health system, because reaching every child with free vaccines requires multiple points of contact with a health system and offers the opportunity to increase access to multiple health services, such as nutrition, making vaccines excellent value for money and central to achieving universal healthcare.
Polio funding has had a far-reaching impact by, for example, supporting 70% of global surveillance systems and funding health workers who deliver other essential vaccines and health interventions. But polio eradication efforts could be compromised as countries struggle to mainstream polio essential functions into weak health systems. Domestic resource mobilisation and country ownership are key to managing the transition, yet in the 16 polio-priority countries, the average Government expenditure on routine immunisation within immunisation budgets is just 31%.
The UK must continue to prioritise polio transition as an issue to ensure not only a polio-free world, but that it is working with countries to help them understand and plan for a transition away from polio funding. I ask the Government to redouble their commitments to vaccinations and to make ambitious commitments to financing Gavi and the GPEI in their upcoming replenishments over the next 18 months and remain a leader in the global immunisation efforts.
I also ask the Government to ensure that the focus of global immunisation efforts is on reaching those left behind who currently receive no vaccines at all. We need to ensure that all investment in immunisations is focused on strengthening immunisation systems so that every child receives the full schedule of recommended vaccines.
Great progress has been made in eradicating infectious diseases, but we must not be complacent and we need to ensure that we keep our eye on the ball and do all we can to help those in the hardest to reach and poorest areas to get the vaccinations that they need.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank you for your indulgence and seek the forgiveness of Members present for this extremely worthy debate this afternoon for barging in mid-way through it with this point of order.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that earlier today the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister for the Cabinet Office responded on behalf of the Government to an urgent question concerning leaks from the National Security Council. The Minister said several times from the Dispatch Box that the Government would co-operate with any police investigation, but during those proceedings the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick, made a public statement in which she said that the police could start proceedings of an investigation only if they were requested to do so by the Cabinet Office, the Minister for which was on his feet at that time. He must have known when he was on his feet responding to Parliament’s questions that that was the case—that there could be no co-operation with a police investigation if the Government had no intention of asking the police to proceed with one.
Given that there is a degree of being casual with the facts, shall we say, may I ask you whether the Minister could come back to the House to clarify exactly what the Government’s position is and what their role might be in getting what many in this place believe to be pivotal, which is the police to investigate the entire sorry affair?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It will be no surprise to him or to the House to hear me say that, of course, what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box is not the responsibility of the occupant of the Chair. From the Chair, I cannot answer the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. What I will say is that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office is most assiduous in carrying out his duties in this House and is never shy about coming to the Chamber when there is a matter that he has to address. I have every confidence that if the hon. Gentleman uses the usual methods of taking forward the point that he has raised, and if there are matters to be discussed further by the Minister in question, I have no doubt that that Minister will assiduously as ever carry out his duties and come here to this House and answer those questions.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
It is truly a pleasure to follow not only my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), but the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and all the Front-Bench speakers, and I am sure that the summing up speeches will also be a pleasure to hear. It is truly a pleasure—a constructive pleasure—to be able to say during a debate in this place that there have been excellent contributions from everyone in the House. We have already come to various points of consensus and agreement. We can all point to things that need to be done, as well as to places that we can learn from and successes that we can celebrate. I will try to confine my remarks to areas that have not been covered by others—I always try really hard not to repeat things that other people have already said. I will focus mostly on antimicrobial resistance and the relationship with immunisation.
In the 1970s, when I was nine, I went to India for the very first time. Just like the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, who described his experience with his dad, I can still remember the pain and discomfort of the vaccinations. I can also remember much more clearly the impact of seeing someone with elephantiasis when I reached India, and of meeting a relative who had been affected by one of the deadly diseases, which she had survived but which had left her permanently disabled, that I had been vaccinated against. It was a really visceral experience of the connection between the discomfort and pain of the vaccination and the consequences of not having access to that vaccination. It was also a real-life experience of inequality—the fact that I had received that vaccination because I was a UK citizen, and the people whom I met in India at that time were not getting those vaccinations. The experience transformed me and my understanding of what vaccinations did. Obviously, I was a child, so I was transformed from being a child without information to being a child with a really strong sense of the importance of vaccination. As an adult, I have been left with a real passion about the value of vaccinations, particularly in the way that they eradicate inequality as well as disease.
I am glad that this debate falls under the Department for International Development rather than the Department for Health and Social Care; it is an interesting place from which to be discussing this matter. Others have already provided examples of diseases, such as smallpox, and also polio, with its permanent debilitating effects. Polio is a good example of a disease that has been virtually eliminated in most countries through widespread vaccination, but still circulates partly because the symptoms are not easily recognised in certain parts of the world. The value of vaccination is so crucial in those diseases where early signs are not necessarily clear or where infection can be transmitted before there are early signs, such as in the case of measles, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) mentioned.
While I cut out from my speech things that others have already said, I will also add something about the decision not to vaccinate a child. The hon. Lady was absolutely right: we must not patronise parents. If they have valid questions, they must be heard, and if they have worries, they must be understood. The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire mentioned certain specific examples of why we have to listen to people. Obviously, we can be gung-ho in our attitude, but not in our interactions. I apologise for being personal about this, but it occurred to me that if someone said to me right now that there was someone in the Lobby who could vaccinate me against ever having cancer again, I would not be seen for dust. We would all rush. We would have no question. We probably would not even stop to ask what the side effects would be. We would be out there immediately. It occurs to me that in our lived memory, we have lost the understanding of the fact that measles is also a deadly disease. Hearing the right hon. Gentleman read out that account from Roald Dahl was really moving and served, perhaps, as a reminder of the issues, or even as new information to many parents who are fortunate enough to live in a world where measles is no longer in front of us—in this country certainly—causing those deaths.
Thangam Debbonaire
The hon. Lady, who is about to intervene on me, gave us examples of how it still is an issue in some parts of the world.
Dr Whitford
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. As I said at the end of my speech, there are researchers who are actually working on the ability to vaccinate against cancerous cells. This is something that we will hopefully be seeing in our lifetime. Is it not then surprising that, in England, even the uptake of the meningitis vaccine, a disease that parents are terrified of, has fallen down to just 92.5%, which means that the community protection is not there.
Thangam Debbonaire
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I do find that baffling, but that does reinforce the point that she and the right hon. Gentleman made about listening to people’s worries and concerns. We will not get very far if we barge through them saying that they are wrong—they are wrong, but we need to listen to where those concerns come from and to try to address them.
Take the influenza vaccination, for example. I declare an interest, in that one of my sisters has to have this vaccination every year because of problems with her immune system. Influenza is a disease about which many of us nowadays would think, “I’ll take a few days off work, take some pills, have a bit of a lie down and sweat it out, and I’ll be back to work, as right as rain.” But of course, not only does influenza still kill people today in other parts of the world; it can kill people today in this country, if their immune system is depleted or for other reasons. Influenza is a really good example of a microbe that is mutating, so new vaccines will have to be developed. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said, some vaccinations are the same as the ones that we were being given 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago, but others will need to be developed. The job is not done on vaccinations. We still need to respect the developing science.
The diseases that we could eradicate forever include elephantiasis, which I mentioned earlier, as well as polio, measles, mumps and rubella. The MMR vaccination has attracted particular attention, partly because of the discredited research by that dreadful person who I do not feel like naming because I feel so angry with him. I just think that these diseases are horrible, and the irresponsibility he showed at that time was quite extraordinary.
What really struck me while I was having cancer treatment was the sheer volume of unqualified, non-medical people willing to give pseudo-medical advice online, when it would not be allowed offline. The Front Benchers here are not quite from the right Departments to address this specific issue, but I ask them to pass on my message to their colleagues in the relevant Departments. I would like to see work done in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that there are equivalent levels of regulation for online medical, pseudo-medical and pseudo-scientific advice as there are in the offline world, because the harm done is the same. I would not expect to go to anywhere on the high street and be given pseudo, incorrect, dangerous, non-scientific advice face to face. It would not be legal; there are laws against it. But in the online world, not so much.
I return to antimicrobial resistance. As I am sure the House is aware, if left unchecked antimicrobial resistance will lead to 10 million deaths a year by 2050, as the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, has said. Immunisation is a vital intervention against AMR. AMR happens when microbes adapt to become resistant to antimicrobial drugs. Once resistance occurs in pathogens—the microbes capable of causing disease—treatment options become very limited and lives are then put at risk. There are already about 700,000 deaths a year caused by infections that are resistant to treatment.
I urge all Members to read or to read a precis of—certainly to absorb the messages of—the brilliant O’Neill review on AMR of 2016, which concluded that vaccines have been overlooked as a tool to reduce AMR and that there should be a much greater focus on and investment in them. Immunisation helps to reduce the increase of AMR in two critical ways. First, it prevents infections in general and drug resistant infections, thereby preventing the disease and deaths. That then negates the need for ever more complex drugs to be used, which are often much more expensive and are therefore probably not available in poorer countries, to treat those resistant infections. Secondly, by preventing infection and the need for treatment at all, the use of antimicrobial drugs overall is reduced in both humans and animals.
Vaccines offer sustained long-term and, in some cases, lifelong—although that depends on the pathogen—protection from infection. Antibiotics do not. Far too many people have in their heads the idea that when they get sick, they will get an antibiotic and that is all that needs to happen. Many vaccines still effective today were introduced many years ago, but the same cannot be said for antibiotics. If there are high rates of mutation, we will need new vaccines. We therefore need to think about the money and investment that we put into developing vaccinations, as well as into maintaining the use of proven ones. The O’Neill review also identified some really clear contexts in which immunisation can reduce AMR, including vaccinating against hospital-acquired infections, and discussed the importance of investment in research for the early stages, when commercial viability may be some years or decades off. The effects of vaccines on AMR are, preventing disease and death; reducing progression and the severity of disease; reducing transmission; and reducing antibiotic use, and therefore the pressure of resistance.
Vaccines work. They save lives, halt the spread of disease, reduce the impact of antimicrobial resistance and prevent rare infections and illnesses. So why do we need a debate at all? Well, we need a debate partly to celebrate the achievement and the impact of vaccination, but also to reiterate the case for it. Sadly, there has been a decline in the use and take-up of vaccinations, with consequent increases in illnesses and infections. The case has to be restated to prompt parents just to check. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said, there are parents in countries across the world who are busy for all sorts of reasons. They may get to their third or fourth child, and getting them vaccinated is either not practically easy or it slips their mind. Just check—I am asking all parents out there, with absolutely no judgment whatever, to use this week as an opportunity just to check whether their children are up to date with their vaccinations.
As people who travel to different countries, it also behoves us all to ensure that we are not being complacent when we travel. I know how easy that is. I have relatives in India who I like to visit on a fairly regular basis, and it is important for us adults to make a little note-to-self to check that our vaccinations are up to date.
I will refer briefly to social media because although the Library research paper—I thank the Library researchers and the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology for providing briefings for our debates—reassures us that most parents say that the information they have seen about vaccination is supportive; unfortunately, 4% said they had seen anti-vaccination information, most of which had come from the internet or social media. We need to tackle that issue.
This debate has been located in the context of international development, so it would be remiss of me not to say how much I value the work of the Department for International Development, across Governments of different political persuasions and over many years. This Department has a high reputation. Of course, that also goes for right hon. and hon. Members who have served in it over many years, so I thank the Department. By way of triangulation, I recently visited the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle—I declare an interest, as my brother-in-law works there—where I was really impressed not only by the thoughtful way in which the organisation contributes to vaccination across the world, but by the high regard in which it holds DFID, and for good reason.
I would, however, like there to be a greater focus on the spread of information via social media and the internet in our international work, because disease knows no boundaries, poverty knows no boundaries and the internet knows no boundaries. Perhaps there needs to be a tie-up between the work done with social media companies, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for International Development. Forgive me—that may already be happening, and I applaud officials if it is.
I reiterate that any right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber who have not read the O’Neill report of 2016 on antimicrobial resistance need to read it. We have talked a lot this week about the climate emergency, and it is definitely an emergency, but so too is AMR. I am going to say this again because it is so shocking: if we stay where we are, by 2050, 10 million people a year will be dead because of antimicrobial resistance.
Alistair Burt
We cannot mention AMR in this House without mentioning Dame Sally Davies, who has done such a fantastic job. If my memory serves me right, she is standing down relatively soon as chief medical officer, but she has made a fantastic contribution, particularly in relation to AMR. She absolutely deserves that we carry on this fight when she moves on to a different role.
Thangam Debbonaire
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I join him in that tribute. I also pay tribute to all the scientists across the world who are helping not only to understand and promote information about AMR, but to help us rethink our relationship with antibiotics. They are also helping us to understand the need to respect antibiotics, but also to respect disease prevention, rather than having a reliance on antibiotics.
Again, I urge all parents to check their children’s records and get them vaccinated if they have not already done so. I also urge all adults to remember to do so themselves when they visit other countries; and I include myself in that. I applaud DFID, the World Health Organisation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others for the work they do, and particularly the support of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. I urge the Department of Health and Social Care—this is a slight, but brief, sidebar—to accelerate the expansion of the human papilloma virus vaccination to include boys. I know that that is in train, but I would just like it to hurry up, please.
I urge social media companies and internet providers across the world to work with health services and Governments across the world on not only tackling the misuse of the internet for promoting incorrect information but highlighting the value of the internet and social media in promoting good-quality information and messaging. There are social media companies and internet providers who want to be seen as a force for good, and this is a really good way that they could contribute to that. In particular, I would like DCMS to work with the Department of Health and Social Care and with DFID on tackling those harms. This should be a cross-departmental initiative.
I join others in wishing the new Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, well in the mission that he described earlier. He is another Minister, and now a Secretary of State, who is well respected across the House. He brings an enormous amount of knowledge and experience of a range of world contacts to this post, and that can only be a good thing. I would like him to bring that experience to this issue with razor-like precision.
I would really like us to get back to respecting experts. That does not mean doffing the cap, or never arguing or asking questions. It does not mean just saying, “Doctor knows best”—if the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire will forgive me—but saying, “Doctor probably does know best.” In my experience, the hon. Lady generally does know best, and I probably do always say that she is right. I would like us to respect experts because they are experts and, when we ask them questions, to remember that they probably do know quite a lot, but, in return, as she said, for them to listen to us and to remember that our reasonable questions have to be heard if we are going to make progress together. I would like us to respect medical science. I would like us to respect researchers and respect research—and to invest in it. In this country, we do well at that. We are an internationally respected country for knowledge creation. I would like us to continue that tradition and to challenge anybody, anywhere, who says stuff about experts in a way that is not just unhelpful but, in this context, life threatening.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for this debate, because it is a really good example of how a small number of people in the right room at the right time can produce a consensus on something where our country can help to show the world leadership and contribute to saving millions of lives.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The House has had the opportunity during this week to congratulate many hon. Members who took part in the London marathon last week. I do not think there has yet been an opportunity for the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) to be congratulated on her particularly courageous performance and on raising so much money for great causes, so she also has the congratulations of the House.
Dan Carden
With the leave of the House, I would like to speak briefly in the closing of the debate. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire).
This has been a debate of great quality. It is pleasing to know that across the House there is deep concern for the health and wellbeing of children and adults across the world. Care and compassion must never stop at our own country’s borders. I have enjoyed the contributions of all Members who have spoken today—the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), and my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and for Bristol West.
In many places around the world, parents walk for many miles simply to get to a clinic and a vaccine that they know could save their child’s life. Yet the same cannot be said in all parts of the world. Many barriers still exist in getting people the healthcare they need. No matter how much money we give or how many vaccines are developed, immunisation will not succeed, in the UK or overseas, unless people trust that clinics, hospitals, medication and vaccines are safe; and unless they know that the care they receive is available free of charge. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the alarming outbreak of Ebola continues to spread. It is a tragedy that many communities simply do not trust that the new Ebola vaccine is safe. Despite efforts to develop a new vaccine for this horrific virus, around one in 10 people who are offered the vaccine are not taking it up. So we need system-wide solutions that tackle the root causes of ill health as the only way to bring about sustainable improvements to people’s lives. Clearly, we need to build trust between communities and health services. Too often in developing countries, the clinic is thought of as the place we go to die rather than recover. If we want global coverage of immunisations for all, then we must do far more to support countries to invest in public, free health services.
I agree with Ministers on their goals for immunisation, but my party disagrees with the Government, in some ways, on how we should support health systems overseas. This Government send Ministers to developing countries to talk up public-private partnerships. They encourage Governments to open up their health systems to British businesses. Labour Members want the UK’s international development work to be focused on supporting publicly owned, publicly run services that everyone can access, and an end to promoting private finance initiative schemes overseas. The next Labour Government will increase the aid spend on health and education and set up a new dedicated public services unit within DFID to help countries to invest in their public services and get them working for everyone. We want a fairer international patent regime that helps people to access medicines, not pharmaceutical companies to hoard profits. Only with a system-wide approach like this will we achieve the goal of immunisations for all.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Harriett Baldwin)
It is great pleasure and honour for me to be able to respond to this incredibly important debate in World Immunisation Week. It has been exceptional to see the quality rather than the quantity of the contributions that we have had. We started with my new boss, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who leapt into action on his first day in the job to come to the Dispatch Box and speak without notes, giving a sweeping review of not only the history of vaccination but DFID’s important work in it as of today. I think that Members across the House have been able to be reassured by his passion and commitment to this incredibly important work.
I was also pleased to hear contributions from a range of other Members. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) spoke very movingly about the lessons he learned from his own grandfather. The stories that we heard throughout the debate of the personal experiences that we have had ourselves or in our families really stood out, because we have been part of a generation —an era—that has made a dramatic difference in this area. We have all pledged ourselves this afternoon to continue to be part of that difference.
The hon. Gentleman asked about replenishment, as did a number of other Members. We are in a period from 2016 to 2020 when we are contributing £1.44 billion to this important work, delivered primarily through Gavi. As a Government, we are very much looking forward to being able to host the Gavi replenishment in 2020. I can announce today that we will of course continue to be a leading contributor to the Gavi replenishment. Obviously, we will hold our horses in terms of announcing to the House exactly how much we will be contributing to that replenishment in due course.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other important points, including the issue of vaccine hesitancy. We must, as we did this afternoon, send a united message on behalf us of all here in the UK against that taking hold here in the UK, but also on how important it is to work on this around the world. We heard a range of contributions about social media, in terms of fake news, being part of the medium for these unhelpful messages. That is clearly an online harm. I would encourage all hon. Members to engage with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on the online harms consultation.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the important issue of middle-income countries. Of course, DFID’s work prioritises the poorest countries. To reach the sustainable development goals, it is important that we contribute overseas development assistance, and we are proud that the UK is the first country to put into statute the 0.7% contribution. But we must also—this is where there is an element of political difference between the hon. Gentleman and me—crowd in the extra $2.5 trillion that is needed every year to reach those goals. That will necessarily come from outside the public sector. Members have raised the importance of pharmaceutical companies in this research and the role of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I need hardly say that if it were not for a successful capitalist system, they would not have been able to donate that money to their foundation.
Dr Whitford
At the moment, the transition begins when a country reaches a certain level of gross national income, which is a relatively crude measure. We are seeing a greater number of unvaccinated children, often in middle-income countries, and multiple countries requiring post-transition support. Obviously, Gavi is rethinking that strategy, and I ask the Government to encourage it to look at something a bit more multifactorial than a number on a piece of paper.
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Lady is right to emphasise that point. We all hope that low-income countries will become middle-income countries and graduate from being supported by Gavi. In 2015 and 2016, for which we have the most recent data, countries that graduated from the Gavi programme maintained the levels of vaccination, but this needs to inform the next period in terms of replenishment, because we cannot afford to lose the community benefit of the level of vaccination.
I was deeply moved by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who I enjoyed having as a colleague for so many months, and I pay tribute to the work he did to champion this cause. I hope his father is still watching television—hello, Mr Burt.
Harriett Baldwin
Dr Burt. His father can be really proud of what his son, having survived those vicious injections as a child, has gone on to deliver, in terms of saving the lives of so many millions—literally, millions—of children around the world with his work.
My right hon. Friend paid tribute to the work of Rotarians. I know that all Members will have come across Rotarians in their constituencies who have been steadfast in raising money to eradicate polio. We are truly on the cusp of doing that. He also mentioned the dangers that health workers face in delivering vaccines. He rightly paid tribute to the Pakistani health workers and police who were killed in terrible attacks in the last month. I think daily of the bravery of health workers who are going into eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo to deliver for the first time in human history the experimental vaccine developed for Ebola. He mentioned the tragic loss of Dr Mouzoko in a conflict zone, with the community resistance to the process of vaccination that has been with us for centuries.
My right hon. Friend made a range of other important points. He talked powerfully about the impact that measles can have and of the three challenges concerning messaging via religious leaders, countering conspiracy theories and countering anti-vax messaging on social media.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) for the expertise she brings to her chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on vaccinations, with her many years of experience as a doctor. I know that she continues to be active in this field. She gave a sweeping review of the contributions to the development of vaccines throughout history, and particularly in the UK. She rightly mentioned the promise of the malaria vaccine trials. Scientists continue to come up with new and better ways to deal with more and more frequent diseases, including the neglected tropical diseases, and we continue to support that through the Department for International Development.
The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) drew attention to the sheer millions of children who have been protected thanks to this vaccination programme. We can estimate how many millions of lives have been saved as a result. He rightly called for us to continue that work through the replenishment of Gavi.
I salute the achievement of the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) in running the marathon on Sunday. She made a very good speech. It is never easy, as the last speaker in a debate, to bring in new points, but she did. She drew attention to the brilliant O’Neill review of antimicrobial resistance in 2016, and I noted her family interest in the work of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
We heard a number of themes in the debate. The first was that disease knows no boundaries. The Department for International Development is responding to the debate because this ties our world together. We need to work as a world to tackle this challenge and ensure that every child has access to vaccinations. Another theme was the expertise of the Department for International Development in this area—
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying so. The expertise in the Department has been much commented upon, and we are fortunate to have it there and across the Government. We are working increasingly with the Department of Health and Social Care, and there is a new committee, which I hope my hon. Friend will follow, to enhance our work. Ensuring that the research base remains strong and is reflected in Departments’ work is important, as is acknowledging that it is my hon. Friend’s birthday. We appreciate her spending her time with us and enlightening us. Despite all the other things we have to think about, the importance of this topic is central, and today’s debate shows that this House can work together on important things, as indeed it must.
Harriett Baldwin
That is very kind, and I am grateful for those good wishes.
I want to conclude with the following observations. We are talking about a public good—perhaps in no other area of human endeavour is there more of a public good—and it is right that we strengthen the public response and public health systems with regard to this work. Every £1 we spend in this area leads to a £16 benefit, in terms of lives saved, time saved and people’s ability to continue to contribute to society. It is remarkably good value for money. As well as strengthening public health systems, we must strengthen our worldwide economy, and that needs to happen through a combination of public services and a successful and thriving private sector. We need both if we are to deliver on this global challenge. I would like to recognise and thank everyone who has taken part in this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered World Immunisation Week.
Business of the House
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 8 May, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition as if the day were an Opposition Day; proceedings on the Motion may continue, though opposed, for three hours and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Andrea Leadsom.)
New Town in Essex
(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am particularly fortunate that you are in the Chair as I make the case for a new town in Essex, because you are a fellow Essex Member. Given the strains and stresses with the need for housing, I know we share the same ambition that we want to do our bit in Essex. Irrespective of exactly where we want to do this—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing will come on to this in his brief response—garden towns are a splendid idea, and I know that Epping Forest and Southend West stand united in doing our bit on housing.
My hon. Friend the Minister is probably puzzled by what has triggered all this, but some months ago I was asked to chair a meeting of Essex MPs with leaders and chief executives of their local authorities. There was a pretty broad agenda, but at the heart of it all was the issue of housing. I absolutely applaud what the Government are doing with North Essex Garden Communities and the Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission, which wants a minimum of 1 million homes, which are needed to support economic growth in the Thames estuary, by 2050. That equates to 31,000 per year. There has also been an excellent paper from Policy Exchange, “Tomorrow’s Places: A plan for building a generation of new millennial towns on the edge of London”.
It occurred to me that, as all parliamentarians know, whenever there is a decision to build something in or near their area, there will be a group of people who are not too keen on it. The area that I represent, Southend West, is an oblong alongside the Thames estuary, and there is literally nowhere to build—we cannot build on the parks we have—so I thought it was wrong for me to suggest precisely where in Essex such new building could take place. Then I suddenly thought that I am the first and last Member of Parliament for the constituency of Basildon, which was the largest and most successful new town in the country. In those heady days of 1983, I represented Basildon and Jerry Hayes represented Harlow.
A number of my colleagues wanted to be in the Chamber for the debate, but obviously other things are happening in our country at the moment. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) wanted to be able to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that Harlow is an extraordinary place of aspiration, opportunity, achievement and community. Many people come to Harlow from the edges of town to make their lives better, to have good-quality housing and to be surrounded by green spaces. Our right hon. Friend believes, rightly, that it is
“a place of achievement because we invented fibre optic communications and are a renowned sculpture town”—
I am beginning to think he, too, is bidding for his town to be a city—
“and we will soon be the home of Public Health England making us the public health-science capital of the world. Our new Enterprise Zone and Advanced Manufacturing Centre will provide education, skills and training to our young people so that they can climb the Ladder of Opportunity.”
Our right hon. Friend believes that Harlow has brilliant schools and a wonderful hospital, but any further help the Government can give it as it prospers and develops would be greatly appreciated.
When I say that I am the first and last Member of Parliament for Basildon, it is true. Much has been written and much has been said about the issue, but perhaps I could describe the semantics of who has represented Basildon as the devil at work. I want the House to know that when I was elected in extraordinary circumstances in 1983, I had five local colleagues: Sir Bernard Braine, Sir Edward Gardner, Sir Richard Body, Sir Bob McCrindle and Harvey Proctor. After the 1979 election, the Boundary Commission decided that the new town should stand alone, with the eight wards of Fryerns Central, Fryerns East, Langdon Hills, Lee Chapel North, Nethermayne, Pitsea East, Pitsea West and Vange. I and my family lived in Nethermayne. We had all represented the new town, but as part of a much larger area. When I won the seat in 1983, it was against an extraordinary background, because every single district and county councillor was Labour and the key officers, who were supposed to be impartial, were also Labour. It was me against an army of people trying to do me down, as it seemed at the time.
I want to say to my hon. Friend the Minister, looking at housing in Essex, that my experience of the new town, through the development corporation and the Commission for the New Towns, was absolutely first class. I and the then Member for Harlow had the same chairman, Dame Elizabeth Coker—sadly, she has now died—who was absolutely wonderful, and a brilliant chief executive called Douglas Galloway. As we know, if such projects are going to be successful, they need strong leadership.
Since 1997, the Boundary Commission has intervened again, but the media did not seem to understand that and a few people pretended that the constituency was still Basildon. Well, it was not: as it is now, it is partly Basildon and Billericay and partly South Basildon and East Thurrock, and since then two representatives have always represented the town. It looks, unless the Boundary Commission changes its mind, that I will be the first and last Member of Parliament for Basildon.
Those were 15 glorious years. Our family was raised there—all the children were born at the local hospital—and our children were educated there. We had very happy times, although we did have some unpleasant incidents when, for whatever reason, the opposition attacked my family about the way I educated my children. They did not go to private schools; they just wanted a Catholic education in a single-sex school, but forces went to work against that. In one of the most extraordinary events, at one election—in those days, only four Conservative MPs were anti-fox hunting, of whom I was one—leaflets were distributed by the opposition saying that I was pro-fox hunting, even though somebody from the League Against Cruel Sports was involved. Fortunately, however, my wonderful agent—I think it was the late Barbara Allen—threatened litigation, and a substantial amount of money went to charity. Some very unpleasant things happened, but most of it was really very positive in every sense of the word.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the development corporation and the Commission for the New Towns put in all the infrastructure that was needed. We had the roads, the schools and the industrial sites for businesses. Every single week, I was opening a new factory, a new plant or a new business. Royalty came to Basildon. In fact, although it had nothing at all to do with me, Basildon-mania took hold of the country. We had visits from Sir John Major and Baroness Thatcher. Everyone wanted to visit Basildon and see what was happening with this economic miracle.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Minister that there were certainly two miracles during my time that I was very proud of. The first was St Luke’s Hospice. It started with a penny from Trudy Cox, and the hospice now supports a very wide community. That was a miracle for human beings—it was opened by Princess Diana and the Duchess of Norfolk—and then we had a miracle for animals when we opened the horse, pony and donkey sanctuary. There is an Act of Parliament—I assume it is still there—that I promoted to stop such animals being cruelly tethered.
Wonderful things happen in Basildon. When I started, we had one police station, and by the time I left in 1997, we had three. Not one person was murdered in the 15 years that I was there. There were no school closures: we stopped them happening. There was a crazy suggestion that the A&E should close and move to Orsett, as should the maternity unit, but we stopped it. In those days, one could stop things more easily than today—a silver birch forest was to be razed to the ground, but we stopped that from happening. Sadly, after 1997, there were school closures, the hospital went into special measures after a time, and the silver birch forest was razed to the ground. It was very unfortunate indeed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and I were invited to attend the 70th anniversary of the founding of Basildon. It was not exactly a trip down memory lane—many of the people I knew had gone or moved on—but he and I sat there and listened to what was said. It was not quite as we remembered, but my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) are doing a splendid job in jointly representing the town.
I come now to the crux of my speech. We all accept that we need more housing. When I got off at Fenchurch Street and went to Tower Hill, I saw people sleeping on the pavements. That is not acceptable. I remember when Mother Teresa came to the House. When she met Baroness Thatcher, she said, “What are these people doing?” It has always happened, and of course many of them have mental health problems and it is a real struggle to house them, but there is a housing shortage. The Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission has estimated that a minimum of 1 million new homes will be needed by 2050 to match population rises and to support economic growth throughout the region. As I have said, that is the equivalent of 31,000 homes a year, which is certainly an ambitious target.
At one time in Basildon we had 40,000 homes in public ownership, which is a huge number. Under the right to buy, which I supported, many were sold, but it was found that 10,000 were affected by clay heave and no one could get insurance for those properties, so we persuaded the then Housing Minister, now Lord Patten, to repurchase 10,000 properties. One can imagine what that meant for local residents.
Every builder had a go at designing an estate in Basildon. One estate was known as “Alcatraz”—they were not all totally successful—but by and large people valued the home they had been given. It was the east end displaced. That is where I come from. Many of my relatives moved there from London, and some still live there. They were thrilled to get their first house. Some might say, “Oh, but they weren’t very attractive,” and all the rest of it, but people had a home, a place to educate their children, a shopping centre and good transport. As far as I am concerned, the new towns were very successful.
If new towns are delivered in the right way, they not only offer affordable homes to many, but become new communities that people want to be part of. They create jobs, infrastructure links and new opportunities. When planned holistically, a new town can address our housing crisis while protecting existing communities from sprawl and the overbearing impact on local services and infrastructure.
It cannot be beyond our wit today to replicate those successes in another part of Essex. I have been here so long that it is an awful long time since I have heard anything original said: people talk enthusiastically, but it has all been said and done before—it is just reinventing the wheel and coming full circle. We do not need terribly clever people to tell us we already have two success stories in Harlow and Basildon. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, however, that while we do not have space in Southend West, there is space in other parts of Essex.
Essex is a wonderful county. Some people say that Kent is God’s own county, but I happen to think that Essex is God’s own county. It is vibrant and extremely well led, and it is entirely understandable that people would want to move there. I know that the Minister is going to tell me about three projects he has in hand, but, whatever the political situation at the moment, the Government should grasp the nettle and do it. Let us build on the successes we already have. One could not find anyone more enthusiastic than me, I am, the first and last MP for Basildon, for a new town in Essex.
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) on securing this important debate on new towns in Essex. He is a particularly effective campaigner for his constituency and very persuasive and passionate in championing those he represents. We are fortunate also to have you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you are also an exemplary representative for that particularly beautiful part of the world, blessed or otherwise from the heavens—in my view, the whole country is so blessed.
As my hon. Friend and many others have highlighted in the House, we have not built enough homes over the last few decades, and we certainly do not build them quickly enough. It is our intention to fix that. As he rightly highlighted, there is much we can learn from the post-war new town programme about the importance of place-making, jobs and skills, infrastructure and the need for the long-term stewardship of place. The design of many of those new towns is often criticised—as he said, it was hit and miss—but it was largely successful, though challenges arose from the rapid development and centralised planning that underpinned them.
New towns were also hugely successful in providing homes and thriving communities for lots of people. Over 2.5 million people now live in a new town, including in lovely Basildon and Harlow. As my hon. Friend recommended, we want to learn those lessons from the past but apply them in a modem context. That is why we believe well-planned, well-designed and locally led garden communities should play a vital role in helping to meet this country’s housing need well into the future by providing a stable pipeline of homes.
This is not just about getting the numbers up; it is about building places that people are happy to call home and that have the potential to become vibrant, thriving communities where people can live and work for generations to come, as my hon. Friend pointed out. We are currently supporting 23 locally led garden communities across the country, from Cornwall to Cumbria, including North Essex Garden Communities, an ambitious proposal for three communities across north Essex with the potential to deliver up to 43,000 new homes.
In March, we announced a further five garden towns, including one in Essex. They include Easton Park garden community, North Uttlesford garden community and West of Braintree garden community. It is an opportunity to deliver up to 18,500 homes. We will make further announcements on more successful places in due course. Each place in the current programme is unique, but the expectations on quality and innovation are high. The council-owned Graven Hill site in Bicester garden town is providing the biggest opportunity for self and custom built homes in the country. Didcot garden town is promoting the innovative use of technology and partnership working between the public and private sector, to underpin a quality agenda.
Garden towns and villages are a key part of the solution to our housing crisis, and we want them to have every lever at their disposal. Last summer, building on the success of post-war new towns, we passed regulations that enabled the establishment of new town development corporations, to be overseen not by the Secretary of State as was previously the case, but by the local authorities that cover the area designated for the new town. Where there are complex delivery and co-ordination challenges, we consider that new town development corporations may be the right vehicle for driving forward high-quality new communities at scale. With a statutory objective to secure the laying out and development of the new town, and with their own suite of powers, those corporations should have the focus and heft to get things done.
Our Housing White Paper “Fixing our broken housing market” was published in February 2017 and committed the Government to allowing locally led new town development corporations to be set up. Section 16 of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 enabled that to happen, and regulations passed in July last year brought those new powers into force—that was one of my first acts as Housing Minister. Some functions, such as the confirmation of compulsory purchase orders, remain with the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State will continue to lay any regulations that designate new towns, or that establish and dissolve new town development corporations. Those regulations do not change the powers of new town development corporations; they simply localise their oversight.
The regulations provide the mechanism to set up a locally led new town development corporation, but they do not enable the Government to do so simply at the behest of a local authority or group of local authorities. If—as we hope and expect—local authorities consider that a locally led new town development corporation is the right vehicle, we will need to undertake a public consultation. Only if we consider that designating a particular new town would be expedient and in the national interest will we lay the relevant statutory instrument. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise each proposal for the designation of a new town, and a statutory instrument designating a new town must be debated in both Houses.
I emphasise that locally led new towns must be just that—locally led—and it will be for those local authorities interested in setting up such a body to make the case to the Government for why that would be expedient and in the national interest. That is a complicated way of saying that local and national bodies need to work together to produce the sort of communities that my hon. Friend refers to. We firmly believe that the success of those communities in future will be founded on local acceptability and control.
My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of delivering not just homes but the infrastructure to support them, and we wholeheartedly agree. That is why we have more than doubled the housing infrastructure fund, dedicating an additional £2.7 billion of funding, and bringing the total fund to £5.5 billion. We have given final approval to 94 marginal viability funding projects that will help to unlock a potential 104,000 new homes, bringing forward a pipeline of homes at pace and scale, and helping to solve the problems facing local communities today. That includes more than £11 million of funding to unlock up to 1,500 homes in Colchester and Chelmsford—not far from the area represented by my hon. Friend.
Following expressions of interest to the forward funding stream of the housing infrastructure fund, we have worked with Essex County Council to develop its bids. We have so far announced seven successful forward funding projects, totalling £1.2 billion of grant funding for infrastructure that will unlock up to 68,000 homes across the country.
As my hon. Friend said, housing and infrastructure are only part of the puzzle, and nowhere is that truer than in the Thames estuary, which encompasses the area from lovely Southend to Canary Wharf, as well as north Kent. Comparable in scale to the midlands engine, the northern powerhouse and Oxford-Cambridge arc, the Thames estuary has tremendous potential to power growth for the benefit of local communities, including those represented by my hon. Friend in Southend, and throughout our country.
In the autumn Budget 2016, we asked the Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission to come up with an ambitious vision and delivery plan for north Kent, south Essex and east London. In June last year, the commission, which was led originally by Lord Heseltine and concluded by Sir John Armitt, announced its vision for the estuary. In March this year, the Secretary of State welcomed the commission’s vision and backed its ambitious plans to create 1.3 million new jobs and generate an extra £190 billion for the local economy.
In the context of achieving that economic growth, we want more homes in the estuary, and the Government have announced further commitments to support the delivery of the commission’s vision for inclusive and well- balanced growth. Those commitments include £1 million to support a new Thames estuary growth board; launching a strategic communications campaign to promote the estuary as a great place to live, work and do business; funding for the creation of masterplans and feasibility studies on key sites in the estuary’s creative production corridor; exploring the potential for two locally led development corporations; and bringing together relevant authorities to collaborate on the Thames Estuary 2100 plan, to ensure that growth is sustainable and resilient.
Moreover, a Cabinet-level ministerial champion will be appointed to act as an advocate and critical friend for the region within the Government—it is not as if the area needs any additional advocacy, but this will be at ministerial level. Our response marks this Government’s commitment to the estuary, and we have a long-standing commitment to local growth in that area of the country. Indeed, the Government have invested a total of £590 million through growth deal funding since 2014 in the South East local enterprise partnership, which covers the constituency of Southend West. Some £22 million has been spent on 29 skills capital projects, designed to equip the resident workforce with the right skills to meet emerging employment opportunities. By 2021, that investment will deliver 15,000 additional qualifications and over 7,300 apprenticeship places.
In fact, within or close to the Southend West area, the South East local enterprise partnership’s investments include funding to develop the Southend and Rochford Growth Hub; help to develop the area around the Victoria Avenue gateway to Southend; and a package of transport projects comprising capacity enhancements to the A127, as well as a Thames Gateway South Essex local sustainable transport programme—snappily named. They also cover £6.4 million to improve broadband infrastructure in Essex, and a Southend and Rochford joint area action plan towards a new business park adjacent to Southend Airport.
I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the tireless work, on top of all that activity and investment, that my hon. Friend is doing on his long-standing campaign to turn Southend into a city, a campaign of legendary status now in this House. Although we are debating new towns, we should reflect that the Government are very much committed to supporting existing towns across England to harness their unique strengths to grow and prosper. That is why we have established a stronger towns fund, from which £37 million will be going to the south-east area. The funding will enable town deals across England, and the money will be used to deliver locally led projects creating new jobs, providing further training and boosting local growth.
In conclusion, we have covered a lot of ground in this short debate. I once again thank my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to do so, and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for supervising a debate about the area you represent so royally. We want to ensure that everybody who wants a home of their own can have access to one at a reasonable price in a place they want to live. Well planned, well designed, locally led garden communities have a crucial role in helping us to fix our broken housing market by providing the long-term pipeline of homes this country badly needs. But this must be about more than just numbers. We need to learn the lessons from the past—as my hon. Friend quite rightly pointed out—and make sure that we build places that people are happy to call home; places that can support vibrant, thriving communities where people can live and work for generations to come, and that may in the future be candidates to be conservation areas, as I hope Basildon will, in time, become.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Thank you. What an excellent short debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Closure and relocation of Solihull Post Office
Closure of Middleton Crown Post Office
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Working at Height: Safety
(5 years, 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
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered preventing serious injury and fatalities while working at height.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I pay tribute to everyone who contributed to the all-party parliamentary group on working at height report, which we published just a few months ago. The acknowledgments on the back pages list the organisations in the sector that brought their expertise to bear.
A 1970s public information film told us:
“The effects of gravity can be grave.”
We all have a stake in our constituents being safe while working at height, including the workers in this very building, which is shrouded in scaffolding, including just outside the doors of Westminster Hall.
Last year, the APPG on working at height undertook an inquiry to understand the reasons why falls from height occur, and to examine their consequences for individuals and their families. It published a report in February, “Staying Alive: Preventing Serious Injury and Fatalities while Working at Height”, which makes a number of recommendations that we hope will help to create a safer environment for the millions of people who work at height in the UK every day.
More than 60 respondents to the APPG took the time to share their experience and suggest ways to improve and build on the current guidelines and legislation. Working at height is not the sole preserve of those we might automatically think of, namely people in the construction sector. We must also consider the work of window cleaners, sole traders, small businesses, people in the oil and gas sector, farmers and agricultural workers, and many other professions besides. The evidence gathering helped us to shape the report’s recommendations and gave us a valuable insight into the challenges faced by those various sectors. The fantastic response from the public and industry highlighted the importance of this issue and the desire to see improvements across all sectors involved in working at height. I pay particular tribute to the Access Industry Forum, and to Peter Bennett OBE of the Prefabricated Access Suppliers’ and Manufacturers’ Association and the No Falls Foundation, which are based in my constituency and forged the idea of setting up the APPG.
At the report launch, we were humbled to hear from Paul Blanchard, who had a fall in 2010 when aged 55. After falling from a roof, he broke his back and 18 ribs, suffered severe head injuries and punctured a lung. He subsequently spent three months in a coma in hospital. His family were told twice that he might not survive, and that if he were to survive he would likely have significant brain damage. Miraculously, he pulled through, but was left with no sense of smell and damaged hearing, and was paralysed from the chest down. At the launch, he spoke movingly about how he is still coming to terms with the changes to his life and that of his family. His account is a stark reminder that a fleeting lapse in concentration can have devastating, lifelong consequences. That must be our main motivation to do all we can to improve the regulatory environment and the rules and guidelines. No one should ever not return home from work as a result of a fall from height.
Although we have a good record in the UK, 35 families last year lost a loved one due to a fall from height. I am sure you will agree, Mr McCabe, that that is 35 too many. The fantastic “Get a Grip” safety campaign, which was launched recently by the Ladder Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, aims to raise awareness of the importance of using ladders and step-ladders safely, both at work and at home, in an attempt to reduce accidents. The campaign features a short film comprising an interview with Abbi Taylor, whose father, Jason Anker, who also gave evidence to us, was paralysed after a fall from height when she was only three years old. Abbi talks candidly about the profound effects that her father’s accident had on her. She speaks about how he was not able to walk her down the aisle at her wedding or babysit his young granddaughter. It is an incredibly powerful message and helps to convey the hugely important message that there can be devastating, real-life consequences to using ladders, or working at height in any capacity, if proper precautions are not taken. I recommend Abbi’s video to everyone here, and would be happy to share the details if anyone is interested.
I would like to see more of that type of campaign, as we do not have the public information broadcasting that we used to have. I am keen for the APPG to explore and be more involved in that. As Dr Karen McDonnell, occupational safety and health policy adviser for ROSPA, said recently:
“We are aware people have deadlines and other pressures, but by cutting corners you’re putting yourself in harm’s way. By making people think about what could happen to family and friends in the event of a fall, we can get people to think twice about their safety”.
I could not agree more. It is one thing to tell people about rules and guidelines, but quite another to tell them of the life-changing impacts that carelessness can bring about. We all see people working on buildings and ladders doing those kinds of things, and we sometimes wonder why people have done what they have done. Often, it is due to a lapse of concentration or because someone has cut a corner.
To tackle some of these issues, the APPG has made four recommendations and highlighted two areas where we want to consult further. First, we want to introduce enhanced reporting through the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995—RIDDOR—which would at a minimum record the scale of a fall, the method used and the circumstances surrounding the fall. It would also be useful to link up with NHS data, which could provide further details. Previously, data was collected through the home accident surveillance system and the leisure accident surveillance system, but that ended in 2003, leaving a significant data gap.
Secondly, we recommend the setting up of an independent reporting body to allow confidential, enhanced and digital reporting of near misses and accidents that do not fall under RIDDOR reporting. That could then be shared with the Government and industry, to inform health and safety policy. We heard evidence from the Confidential Hazardous Incident Reporting Programme charitable trust, the UK Confidential Reporting Programme for Aviation and Maritime, and Confidential Reporting on Structural Safety, all of which have seen the benefit of such a reporting scheme. It would be particularly useful in addressing emerging new risks in newer areas of industry and construction. Things are changing, and buildings look very different. The occasions on which people may have to work at height, such as music festivals, are developing all the time, and we must consider how accidents can be reported.
The first two proposals attracted broad agreement from those who responded to the APPG’s inquiry. There is concern that safety improvements are hindered by a lack of empirical data, knowledge and understanding of the root causes of falls from height. The issue is compounded by a cultural obstacle when it comes to supporting people to report unsafe practices. The recommendation concerning improved reporting suggests a change to existing systems of data collection, as opposed to building something from scratch. Free-text boxes and not asking the right questions hamper the learning that can be taken from incidents. The Minister will be glad to hear that stakeholders believe that making those improvements would have little financial burden on the Government. It would be a quick win and would improve data quality and accuracy almost overnight. For those reasons, I would be grateful if the Minister gave the proposal serious consideration.
Our third recommendation concerns extending the “Working Well Together—Working Well at Height” safety campaign to a wider audience outside construction. There are now many industries that involve work at height that ought to be considered, and it appears that stakeholders would welcome such an initiative. The Health and Safety Executive analysed 150 falls from height that it investigated in the food and drink industry over three years. Its website indicates that 40% of workers fell from ladders; 17% from vehicles or forklifts; 10% from machinery or plant; 10% from platforms; 8% from stairs; 7% from roofs or false ceilings, 4% from scaffolds and gantries; and 4% from warehouse racking. A range of incidents can occur. Workplaces are increasingly complex, and workers are perhaps not as prepared as they could be due to the nature of work, including temporary and zero-hours contracts. Workers in those environments need to be protected wherever they are.
The APPG has suggested changes that draw on best practice or existing mechanisms. That is why our fourth recommendation is that the Scottish fatal accident inquiry process should be extended to all parts of the UK. In Scotland, Ministers are required under section 29 of the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016 to report on fatalities. FAIs are mandatory for deaths occurring in the workplace, and the outcomes are publicly available online. Extending that to all parts of the UK would go some way to ensuring that all fatalities in the workplace, including those as a result of a fall from height, are properly and thoroughly investigated and reported, and that recommendations for change are made.
The APPG wants to look further at a digital technology strategy, including a new tax relief to help small, micro and sole traders to invest in new technology. That is more an issue for the Treasury, rather than the Minister, but we think it is important. We heard from the City of London Corporation about its initiative to improve understanding of working at height among facilities management companies, and from construction giant Balfour Beatty about its use of drone technology to carry out bridge inspections, cutting the risk for workers at height. Technology offers great potential and it should be available not just to wealthy companies but as widely as possible, including to small businesses and lone workers so that they can avoid putting themselves at risk. This is also a good time for Government to instigate a major review of work-at-height culture, which should include investigating the suitability of legally binding financial penalties in health and safety. Those funds could go towards raising awareness.
I have been contacted by people interested in preventing injury from dropped objects, for which the data is also quite sketchy. The HSE collects information on those struck by moving objects, which accounted for 13% of deaths and 10% of injuries, but there is no sense of exactly which objects were moving, in what manner, how they caused harm or what happened. Information suggests that dropped objects are in the top 10 causes of injury in the oil and gas industry alone. That requires much more investigation, and the APPG intends to look into it further.
Work is being carried out in the United States, with the ANSI/ISEA 121 dropped object prevention solutions standard, and in Aberdeen with the dropped objects prevention scheme, or DROPS. I encourage the Minister to investigate whether those schemes could enhance the HSE’s work.
I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members who came to the debate hoping for a wee break from Brexit, but it is important to touch briefly on the potential impact that leaving the European Union may have on this area of policy, which we must bear in mind when it comes to people’s safety. In a recent survey, 97% of businesses asked by EEF said that they wanted no immediate change to regulations as and when the UK leaves the EU. We must not sacrifice red tape, because it provides a safety net.
The UK Government introduced the Health and Safety (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which are designed to ensure that all EU-derived protections are fully incorporated into UK law. The message from the APPG is clear: Ministers must ensure that no individual who works at height is any less safe after Brexit. I hope the Minister will make a commitment on that.
Before I conclude my remarks, I thank the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson), who is an excellent member of the APPG and is very committed to the issue. I am glad to see him here. I am sure that if it were not for today’s local elections, the debate would have a much wider attendance.
Although I acknowledge that the UK has some of the lowest workplace fatality and serious injury rates of any country in the European Union, the latest data— published last year by the Health and Safety Executive—shows that, averaged over the past five years, 26% of deaths at work happen as a result of a fall from height, which is by far the leading cause. In 2017-18, 8% of workplace injuries were the result of a fall from height—those injuries can be very serious. Many of those deaths and injuries are preventable, and that is a tragedy. We in this place must therefore do everything in our power to minimise risk and protect individuals as much as possible. One fatality at work is one too many.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I support the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) in commending the APPG report to the Minister and to the House as a whole. I have played a small part in the group, but was able to attend a number of sessions and helped to sign off the report’s recommendations. I have done so because it is self-evident and important that we must try to reduce still further the number of deaths and injuries caused by falls from height.
My first memory of my dad was visiting him in hospital after he had suffered an industrial injury and was off work for six months. It is important to remember that it is not just the individual who is affected by an injury at work, but their family, as the hon. Lady said. Although my dad was not injured by a fall from height, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Work at Height Regulations 2005, which were both passed by a Labour Government, are critical pieces of legislation. They ensure that those who work at height, either for big businesses or when self-employed, come home safe, contribute at work safely and are free from injury or—in some cases, sadly—death, as a result of their efforts at work.
We have a responsibility not only through business, central Government regulation and legislation passed by this House, but through the exploitation and promotion of good practice, to ensure that we do all we can to make that happen. The report shows that in the last year for which we have figures, 18% of people who died at work died as the result of a fall from height, so inroads the Government make in tackling that challenge will help to reduce the overall number of deaths at work. Our figures are very good compared with other European countries, partly because of the legislation passed to date, but as the hon. Lady said, the report mentions some important ways we can not only build on the regulations that place duties on employers, self-employed people and any individuals who contract people to work at height, including building owners, facility managers and householders, but rise to the challenges set out in the report. I look forward to hearing what the Minister thinks the challenges will be.
The hon. Lady mentioned the importance of reporting. There is now a reporting mechanism, but the APPG’s report asks for enhanced reporting to examine still further, and at a minimum, the scale of the fall, the methods used and the circumstances—to get as much information as possible about the fall, so that we can learn and help to prevent future injuries. Is the Minister happy with the current level of reporting and with the demands put on it? Is there scope to improve reporting, as the hon. Lady and the report have requested? If so, as Minister, he has a duty to improve reporting and prevent future injuries and deaths.
The hon. Lady mentioned that our report asks for an independent body to ensure that we allow confidential, enhanced digital reporting of near misses. Reporting a number of near misses that could have resulted in death or serious injury is crucial to oblige good practice and to ensure that we reduce the potential danger and the threat of poor behaviour. What is the Minister’s view on an independent body? Does he think it worthwhile or would it be an additional burden on business? I do not think it would be, but I would like some clarity on that, because it is important that we have that level of support.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Working Well Together campaign and the Working Well at Height safety campaign for industries outside the construction sector. Many businesses regard that as a critical part of their work for training, assessments and so on. For some businesses, however, working at height might be occasional and not central to their daily work. What is the Minister’s view on the Working Well Together Campaign? Can it be improved? He has the ability to make changes if his good team of officials assess them and support him in doing so.
The hon. Lady mentioned Scotland’s fatal accident inquiry process, and I think that there is merit in that. If I get nothing else from the Minister today, I would welcome confirmation of whether he has even looked at Scotland’s fatal accident inquiry process. If he has, what is his assessment of it? I am not asking him today to expand it; I am just asking whether he has looked at it. Have his officials looked at it? Will he be reviewing it? Will he bring to the table an assessment of whether lessons from Scotland could improve safety at work?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I want to help the right hon. Gentleman. Perfectly legitimately, he is making, as did the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), a number of particular points. It may also help colleagues who have yet to speak if I make this brief point in an intervention. Clearly, this matter requires the Health and Safety Executive to report back to the Government on it. The Government would rightly be criticised if they were too definitive without first receiving a specific response from the HSE. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will attempt, within the bounds of what I am able to say, to answer the points raised by the hon. Lady and by him, but obviously we are subject to the formal response by the HSE.
David Hanson
I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record. He knows that I acknowledge that relationship, but the key point is that, as the Minister, he can commission work, ask for reviews and, if he has not already, ask the Health and Safety Executive to look at the Scotland fatal accident inquiry process to assess whether any improvements have been made.
Finally, the report also suggests a review of working-at-height culture. Potentially, with the great modern technology we have, that includes mechanisms that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central mentioned, such as drones and other activities. We do not wish to put people out of work, but the threats and dangers of certain aspects of work can be minimised by advancing technology. Again, the Minister has the overview to work with the Health and Safety Executive, that great Labour Government invention, to reduce the number of deaths and injuries at work.
I support what the hon. Lady said, and I want to put on record my support from the Labour Back Benches for the recommendations. I hope that our discussions over 18 months to two years will result in some changes that prevent injury and loss of life, and give some people the opportunity to go back to work the following day, contributing to our economy without threat to their life or their family’s future.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. When I saw your good self and the Minister sat there, I thought that I was in a Select Committee. I was ready to ask him impertinent questions—
Chris Stephens
I will perhaps have to quote the Minister’s comment back at him during a future inquiry.
I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), on all her work on working at height, which is particularly prevalent in sectors such as construction. I come from a trade union background and was a Unison activist in Glasgow, and we were very aware of such issues, in particular those around whether workers should get additional payments for the context in which they work—at height, for example—and so on. We should remember that in some sectors of the economy, blacklisting by employers was prevalent, often of individuals who expressed the health and safety concerns of workers. That is a real problem and it is still happening. Blacklisting is illegal, but some evidence presented to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs last year suggested that the practice continues. I refer Members to the early-day motion in my name that calls for a public inquiry into blacklisting.
Every fall from height can have life-altering consequences for workers and their families. The working-at-height culture needs to improve, as the APPG report demonstrates clearly, but sadly the issue does not yet appear to be at the top of decision-making agendas. Lack of data prevents us from understanding the causes of falls from height, which is compounded by a cultural obstacle to supporting people to report unsafe practices.
This excellent report looks at the issues that the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) talked about, in particular the four primary recommendations: the enhanced reporting system; the appointment of an independent body to allow confidential, enhanced and digital reporting of all near-misses, to be shared with Government and industry to inform health and safety policy; the extension of the Working Well Together programme; and the extension of the Scotland fatal accident inquiry process to other parts of the United Kingdom.
Another concern to share is that, under the coalition Government, the HSE suffered cuts and job losses. Many of us from a trade union background and those Members in Parliament at the time had real concerns about the deregulation of health and safety and the reporting of it. I hope that the Minister will tell us what the existing staffing levels are at the HSE, because I would be concerned had the numbers reduced over the past 10 years. Clearly, we should not be cutting jobs at the Health and Safety Executive.
In Scotland, under section 29 of the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016, Ministers are required to report on fatalities. Fatal accident inquiries are the legal mechanism through which deaths in the workplace are investigated. Inquiries are mandatory for deaths occurring in the workplace, as well as in custody, or when the circumstances are deemed to be in the public interest, and they are usually held in the sheriff courts. The outcomes of all fatal accident inquiries since 1999 are publicly available and can be accessed online via the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. The all-party group calls for an equivalent system to be introduced in the rest of the UK, to ensure that employers are held to account for fatal injuries occurring as a result of workers falling from height, and that incidents are reported with sufficient information.
The Scottish Government are looking at the law on culpable homicide and considering proposals made by Members of the Scottish Parliament. For example, Claire Baker MSP launched a consultation, which ran from 7 November to 23 April this year, on how the law on culpable homicide can be tightened, and the related Bill appears to have cross-party support.
Companies can be prosecuted under the UK Government’s Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. We support the Act, but have concerns about the lack of prosecutions under it. Will the Minister talk a bit about that when he responds to the debate? Individual directors can also be charged with the common law offence of culpable homicide or with offences under health and safety legislation, but the SNP position is that if existing legislation can be improved by devolved legislation, we will consider what further steps should be taken.
In the 2018-19 programme for government, the Scottish Government committed to establish in spring this year a new support service—developed and delivered with Victim Support Scotland—to give families bereaved by murder and culpable homicide dedicated and continuous support. That is an important part of the Government’s programme. Wider work to look at the law of homicide is also under way. The Scottish Government asked the Scottish Law Commission to consider that law, and examination commenced in February 2018. Our view is that every fatality at a place of employment in Scotland should be investigated, and that the nature of the deaths requires a detailed and often lengthy investigation involving complex, technical and medical issues and expert opinion. The law already allows individual directors to be charged, which of course is necessary.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central. Clearly, Scottish National party Members are leading the way in this Parliament in promoting the rights of workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) is campaigning against discrimination against young people in the living wage; my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), is producing legislation on unpaid work trials; and I am promoting—this debate is another opportunity to do so—the Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill, which touches on issues such as a worker’s status. People in industries such as construction believe that they are workers or employees, but later find out that they are somehow self-employed. We need to get on top of the issue of precarious work.
Thank you, Mr McCabe, for chairing this debate. I commend to the House the report of the all-party parliamentary group on working at height.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr McCabe.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on securing this important debate, and on her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on working at height, which produced a thought-provoking report in February. I thank her for her comprehensive and effective speech.
From conservation work on Big Ben to pruning trees and cleaning windows, it is estimated that each year, more than 1 million British businesses and 10 million workers carry out tasks that involve some sort of working at height. Action to protect the health and safety of workers has been a central issue for the labour movement throughout its history. Lord Shaftesbury, a Conservative politician, also campaigned for factory reform in the 19th century. However, some Conservatives see health and safety as part of some kind of “nanny state”, implying that there is no need for health and safety regulation, and that providing safety in the workplace is in some way damaging to the economy. The last leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister said, in January 2012:
“One of the coalition’s new year resolutions is this: kill off the health and safety culture for good.”
That is truly shocking, and shows a real disregard for the health and well-being of millions of working people throughout the country.
Strong health and safety legislation is as important today as it has always been. The latest figures for injuries and fatalities at work show that there is still a real need for robust health and safety regulations, especially for working at height. In 2017-18 there were 555,000—over half a million—non-fatal injuries at work, according to figures from the Health and Safety Executive, which has been responsible for safety in the workplace since 1974.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) on drawing attention to the Labour party’s strong track record and pivotal role in health and safety legislation. In 2017-18, 8% of all non-fatal workplace injuries were due to a fall from height, and of the 144 workers killed at work, 35 were due to a fall from height. Deaths due to a fall from height represent a high proportion of the total, that being the largest reason for a death at work. The figures for 2017-18 are broadly in line with the average of 37 a year since 2013-14. Twenty of those 35 deaths occurred in the construction industry, although falls from height also occur in other parts of the economy, such as agriculture and the service industries.
The last Labour Government introduced the Work at Height Regulations 2005, which are widely considered to have led to a significant improvement in safety at work. The number of deaths resulting from falls from height at work in 2017-18 was 27% lower than in 2005-06. Nevertheless, we need to do more. I want to talk about three areas—reporting, enforcement and the future uncertainty we face as we leave the European Union.
On reporting, the HSE has estimated that only around half of non-fatal injuries are reported, and that the self-employed, who make up 37% of jobs in construction, report an even smaller proportion. In her report for the last Labour Government into the underlying causes of fatal accidents in the construction industry, Baroness Donaghy commented:
“It is a disgrace that we have such a low level of reporting of serious accidents, let alone near-misses”.
Yet in 2013, the HSE amended the regulation on the reporting of injuries at work to reduce the reporting burden on industry, so detailed data on falls is no longer collected. What consideration have the Government given to requiring reporting of the circumstances of a fall, such as how it happened, the distance, and the experience and training that the person had received on working at height? Regulation and reporting are vital, as is enforcement.
On enforcement, according to Government figures, the Treasury’s funding for the HSE is set to be over £100 million less this year than in 2009-10, which is a cut of 45%—almost half—over 10 years. That is shocking. How do the Government seriously expect the HSE to continue to carry out its statutory duties, as well as take on new ones post Brexit, with cuts of that scale to its funding? The number of enforcement notices issued by the HSE fell in 2016-17 and 2017-18. What assessment has the Minister’s Department made of the impact of funding cuts on the number of inspections that HSE undertakes? The Government have so far failed to respond to the tailored review of the HSE, which was published in November last year. When do they intend to do so?
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) mentioned Brexit; if future funding is one key uncertainty for health and safety regulation, Brexit is another. After the UK joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973, European directives on health and safety mirrored much of what was in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. However, in certain respects European legislation went further, and working at height was one area where UK regulation followed a European directive.
The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) said during the referendum campaign that the UK could slash safety standards after Brexit. That is a truly shocking proposal and shows disregard for the well-being of working people. Will the Minister give us a guarantee that existing health and safety legislation will not be watered down after we leave the EU, and that as the EU seeks to extend health and safety legislation, the protection that UK workers enjoy will keep pace?
The tragedy is that falls from height can very often be preventable, through proper enforcement of existing legislation and increased awareness of good practice. The 2005 regulations state that work at height should be avoided altogether wherever practical. As has been mentioned, new technology makes that possible in certain circumstances, such as the use of drones to inspect bridges or buildings. New technology also provides real opportunities for companies and organisations to provide vital health and safety training to help protect people in the workplace.
Rita Donaghy’s 2009 report into fatal accidents in construction was titled “One Death is too Many”. I am sure that is a sentiment that we can all agree on. Those who criticise health and safety regulations as an example of a nanny state might reflect on the impact that deaths and injuries at work have on bereaved families or victims whose lives are shattered as a result.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
Thank you for being in the chair in today’s debate, Mr McCabe. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) is right that it feels a little like a reunion of the Work and Pensions Committee, but it is certainly a privilege to respond on behalf of the Government to a worthy and important report, and I will attempt to address as many of the points as I can.
I should explain from the outset that I am not the specific Minister with departmental responsibility for this matter. I convey the apologies of the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who will ultimately respond to the report on behalf of the Government. Departmental officials have briefed me on the report to allow me to respond to many points, which I will do to the best of my abilities. I reiterate the point that I made to the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson)—that the HSE needs to feed the Government its views on the report as a whole and on the specific recommendations.
It is right and proper to thank all colleagues for attending; I think the hon. Member for Glasgow South West made the fair point that today, many constituents will enjoy the pleasure of their Member’s company at the local elections and the like. Otherwise, I am certain more would have been here. I put on the record the Government’s acceptance and acknowledgment of the cross-party working that went into the production of the report. That is to the credit of all colleagues who have worked together. I also thank the Access Industry Forum and all the witnesses. Sadly, we will have to discuss Brexit briefly in a moment, but it is often said that this Parliament is solely focused on thing, unaware that there are many other things that Members are doing. The issue we are talking about is of great worth and merit and is part of an ongoing process.
I will push back slightly on the right hon. Member for Delyn, who seemed to suggest that it was solely the Labour Government who were interested in these matters on an ongoing basis. He will be aware of the Factories Act 1961 and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. Successive Governments, of whatever shape or form, have attempted to address health and safety at work in a multitude of ways, to try to reduce the number of accidents and increase the degree of ongoing safety.
I spent 15 years representing claimants who had suffered similar injuries to those described by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) in her opening speech. I worked on approximately 200 or 300 personal injury cases concerning falls from height, sometimes union-backed. I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow South West that there have been many examples where unions have been very supportive of members and have ensured that they got the best possible representation and compensation. I was lucky enough to represent many unions on an ongoing basis in cases in the past.
This issue affects a whole host of different industries. It is easy to say that it affects only scaffolders and roofers, but it can also affect farmers and, self-evidently, people who work in the oil and gas industry. Bluntly, it also affects the mum or dad who chooses to fix their own windows or roof, or to mess with their television aerial. There are many examples of individuals working from height without necessarily understanding the consequences of what they are getting involved with.
I welcome the debate. Let me say, for the avoidance of doubt, that this is an extremely important issue. I shall make a few preliminary points. First, the Health and Safety Executive has informed the Government that it will respond formally to the APPG’s report in due course. I have pressed for a specific timetable. I do not want to inscribe this in stone, but I am told that a response will be made within 60 working days at the very latest, and cover all the points raised in the report and any other issues raised in this debate that are outstanding. I assure the House that the HSE’s response will be deposited in the Library.
It is right to note—I do so not to make a party political point, but because we cannot discuss health and safety at work without putting this on the record—that Great Britain has lower levels of accidents and injuries at work than most nations. The report states fairly at page 6 that, since the introduction of the 2005 regulations,
“the UK has consistently had some of the lowest workplace fatality and serious injury rates in the European Union.”
The report cites the 2014 statistics for the UK and similar countries: the UK had 0.55 fatalities per 100,000 employees, compared with 3.14 in France and 0.81 in Germany. We all agree that one fatality is too many, but that should not detract from the fact that successive Governments have done good work in this field. I also recognise, if it needs to be recognised, that falls from height are a major cause of serious and fatal injuries. The right hon. Member for Delyn fairly made the point, with the poignant tale of his father, that this issue affects each and every person in our communities.
As a practising barrister, I was involved in cases concerning scaffolders and the like both before and after the Work at Height Regulations 2005 were introduced. The report rightly makes it clear that it is agreed that the regulations are fit for purpose and fundamentally appropriate. The HSE has indicated that it welcomes the report and the desire for action. A key strand of the “Helping Great Britain Work Well” strategy for health and safety is acting together, and it is pleasing to see the work at height industry coming together in this way. The HSE undertakes to continue working with stakeholders to promote better working practices in the industry to try to protect workers in the workplace.
The report recommends that the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995—RIDDOR, as we all know them—should include enhanced reporting, so that additional intelligence is available. When those regulations were amended in 2013, the key change for work at height was the removal of the high fall—2 metres and above—and low fall categories. However, the free text box on the current reporting form where the reporter includes information about the incident remains the same, and can still be used to record additional information about any work at height incident. That text box can be used to record information about the height of a fall.
The report suggests that enhanced reporting would help to identify the causes of falls from height. It is not for me to come to that conclusion at this stage, but we will listen to the HSE before the relevant Minister comes to a view on that issue. The HSE and industry have already undertaken plenty of excellent work in investigating work at height accidents, and they have established the main reasons behind such falls. Much good guidance is already available from the HSE and industry that addresses this important topic. The Government feel that it is fundamentally more important to place emphasis on the need to follow existing guidance and good practice to prevent falls wherever practicable, or to mitigate their effects should a fall occur.
Another recommendation in the report is that an independent body should be appointed to allow confidential reporting, and that that reporting should include near misses and other non-RIDDOR accidents. The HSE is fundamentally supportive of efforts in this area, but wishes to respond in more detail. However, it is right to put it on the record—this addresses points that several Members made—that the HSE operates a complaints advisory team, to which employees and the public may report concerns about work at height and dangerous practices in the workplace. Crucially, people may make such reports anonymously, and that can lead to the HSE inspecting areas of concern. The Government believe it is important that near misses are reported first and foremost to the employer as soon as possible. It is the employer who needs to investigate and introduce controls.
The report further suggests extending Working Well Together beyond the construction sector. The Access Industry Forum already helpfully provides financial and resource support to Working Well Together, so its groups around Great Britain can run “Working Well at Height” safety and health awareness days. The HSE already works with the Access Industry Forum and Working Well Together. It will continue to promote them and will explore whether there is an appetite for extending the campaign outside the construction sector. The agriculture sector is well known for similar incidents, so the HSE will discuss with the Access Industry Forum how it might also support that sector. As a representative of a very strong farming community, I will be looking to the National Farmers Union in my area to see how it wishes to address this point locally.
A couple of colleagues mentioned Brexit. I wish to make it very clear that we agree with the statement on page 10 of the report that the Government must ensure that no change is made as a result of Brexit that makes individuals who work at height less safe. On that point, the Prime Minister has committed to protecting workers’ rights as the UK leaves the European Union. That includes specific health and safety protections. The Prime Minister has said that there will be no lowering of standards after Brexit.
Hon. Members mentioned the approach in Scotland, where fatal accident inquiries are reported on and then entered on a publicly accessible database. I accept that the report recommends that a similar process should be introduced for England and Wales. I do not want to give a politician’s answer, but I will do so, to a degree. This is an issue for the Ministry of Justice. To be fair to the Ministry of Justice, it is aware of the issue and is looking to respond as part of the HSE response and the Government’s response.
The Ministry of Justice will certainly come back to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central and the APPG on this matter, but I have been asked to make a couple of points in the interim. In England and Wales, the coroners’ courts make findings and reach conclusions. Although those are not routinely made available, they are read out in public at the hearing, and there is a system where the coroner will write to ask relevant bodies and organisations to take action if they believe there is a continued risk to life. Those reports and responses are published in “prevention of future deaths” reports by the Chief Coroner and are publicly available. On that particular issue, the Government at present have no plans to change the proven process, but we will wait to see what the HSE says.
Several colleagues spoke about the causes of falls. I think it is fair to say that there is a fundamental view that the causes of falls are already well known from the many HSE and industry investigations. It is questionable whether gathering additional information would reveal new causes, given the extensive work over decades to identify what causes falls. I endorse entirely the benefits of enhanced data and of drones providing better preliminary assessments of the proposed height at which one would be working. There is absolutely an ongoing desire to ensure that there are fewer injuries in the long term.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central for her efforts, both in terms of the report and in bringing this important matter before the House. I hope Members are assured that there is a plan to take this matter forward. The Government will continue to support the work of the HSE and industry in reducing the number of serious injuries and fatalities, and we will provide a response shortly. The Minister with responsibility for this area looks forward to meeting the APPG and having an opportunity to set out the Government’s position following the HSE’s response.
Alison Thewliss
I thank everyone for coming and contributing to the debate. I appreciate what the Minister said about not perhaps being the correct Minister to cover this debate, but I appreciate the way in which he responded and the expertise he brought to the debate, which is important. I am glad that the HSE will provide a comprehensive response to the report, and that that will be made available in the Commons Library for others to see. That is useful.
I also look forward to receiving the reports on how fatal accident inquiries might be widened or used. I appreciate that that is a Ministry of Justice issue, but the implications of such inquiries, where we have seen them in Scotland, have been quite useful in their process and in making public recommendations. There is currently a much delayed and much publicised one going on about the Clutha helicopter crash in Glasgow. That has involved a huge evidence-gathering process. People will be able to go and watch, and in time the findings will come out. It is a good process for finding out where something has gone wrong and putting it right for the future.
The Minister is correct about the farming sector. The NFU was a keen contributor to the report. I had a conversation with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—unusually, he is not in his place—who said he was away to fix something on the roof of his farm with a ladder and then he realised, “What am I doing? I am on my own here. Why would I go up on the roof with a ladder? Something could happen.” The House would be much poorer for the loss of him, so I am glad that he saw that. That story shows how easily decisions can be made that cause people to take risks without thinking them through and end up injured or worse. More can be done on educating the public about that.
There is still a need for enhanced reporting, so I urge the Minister to look at that. While there is the free text area within the reporting, it does not go far enough to gather the right information. We therefore do not know whether someone using equipment was trained, had particular qualifications or was part of any organisations that might have given advice. It would be useful to have as much background detail as possible to get to the bottom of what went awry to cause the accident.
Guy Opperman
I am interrupting the hon. Lady’s final peroration to add two points. First, I accept that that is a live issue; to pretend otherwise as to how we do that would be wrong. She has also reminded me that I failed to respond to a point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) about blacklisting, which is a loathsome practice. It is quite right for a Government Minister to make it absolutely clear that we wholeheartedly oppose such a process. Employers have a legal duty to consult employees and their representatives on HSE complaints. Blacklisting is absolutely not acceptable in any way, and full support will be given to those, of whatever shape or form, who bring forward cases of such heinous behaviour.
Alison Thewliss
I thank the Minister for adding that—I was about to come on to blacklisting and the risk that some workers feel on reporting when things are not right. Employees in precarious employment in particular feel that if they become a whistleblower, they could quickly and easily lose their job, with the issue going unresolved for the next worker to come up against as well. I urge him to consider whether the anonymous reporting scheme that he mentioned covers that eventuality. There may be a time lag between someone’s reporting and an investigation; investigating needs to be done more efficiently and quickly, so that there can be a resolution without that worker being put at individual risk of losing their employment.
I was glad to hear what the Minister said about workers’ rights. We will hold the Government to that—he had better believe that we will. Working at height is increasingly complex, because buildings and the employment spectrum are more complex. It is right that the regulations are looked at again to ensure that they are entirely fit for purpose, because things have changed dramatically since they were written and we need to ensure that they are always effective in protecting workers.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered preventing serious injury and fatalities while working at height.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
The next debate is scheduled to start at 3 pm, so I am required to suspend the sitting until then.
Sharia Law Courts
(5 years, 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
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered sharia law courts in the UK.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I am extremely grateful to all hon. Members who have turned up on a Thursday afternoon when there is not much business on and at a time of local elections. That shows their devotion to this House and to the subject of this debate.
The genesis of this debate is a report prepared for the Council of Europe in January, at which I happened to speak. The report was led by a paper prepared by a member of the Spanish Socialist party, and it looked at the compatibility of sharia law with the European convention on human rights. I will turn to that topic later. The report singled out the UK, not completely approvingly, for how it approached this issue, as well other countries, such as Greece, which have taken a different approach.
When approaching this issue, I am aware that the charge of Islamophobia may be levelled against us, but it is right that we consider sharia law courts or councils in terms of their conformity with the European convention on human rights, just as we do with other aspects of UK society. I am also aware of “The independent review into the application of sharia law in England and Wales”, which was produced in February 2018. The review was chaired by Professor Mona Siddiqui of the University of Edinburgh, and the panel included distinguished lawyers and religious and theological experts. I read that report with great interest.
The Council of Europe called on the authorities of the United Kingdom to do a number of things. I will read them out but comment on only one of them. First, it called on the UK to
“ensure that sharia councils operate within the law, especially as it relates to the prohibition of discrimination against women, and respect all procedural rights.”
Secondly, it called on the UK to review the Marriage Act 1949,
to make it a legal requirement for Muslim couples to civilly register their marriage before or at the same time as their Islamic ceremony, as”—
the report claims—
“is already stipulated by law for Christian and Jewish marriages.”
As an aside, I am aware that a number of imams are also qualified registrars and can therefore conduct the civil service at the same time as the religious service. Similarly, a number of Catholic priests are qualified registrars. However, I do not think there is a legal requirement for that to go ahead.
Thirdly, the Council called on the UK to
“take appropriate enforcement measures to oblige the celebrant of any marriage, including Islamic marriages, to ensure that the marriage is also civilly registered before or at the same time as celebrating the religious marriage.”
Fourthly, it called on the UK to ensure that vulnerable women are provided with safeguards against exploitation and informed about their right to seek redress before UK courts. The Council also called for awareness-raising campaigns to be put in place, to encourage Muslim communities to acknowledge and respect women’s rights in civil law, especially in marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance. As an aside, I think there is a lot to be said for emphasising that particular point and ensuring that we indulge in awareness campaigns.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about awareness. Like him, I carefully read the independent Home Office report, which said:
“It is this misrepresentation of sharia councils as courts that leads to public misconceptions over the primacy of sharia over domestic law and concerns of a parallel legal system.”
Although the hon. Gentleman has been careful with his language, as I would expect, the Order Paper says “sharia law courts”, which is precisely what the Home Office report said we should avoid.
John Howell
I realise that the independent report calls them sharia law councils, but we can come on to look at that in the moment. I was reading out the Council of Europe’s descriptions, which calls them sharia law courts. We should continue with that, at least for the moment.
The Council’s next point was that the UK should
“conduct further research on the ‘judicial’ practice of Sharia councils”—
to use that term—
“and on the extent to which such councils are used voluntarily, particularly by women, many of whom would be subject to intense community pressure in this respect.”
The Council of Europe committee held meetings with Professor Ruud Peters of the University of Amsterdam and Professor Mathias Rohe of Erlangen University in Germany. On 5 September 2017 it held another hearing and the participants included Mr Konstantinos Tsitselikis, professor in human rights law and international organisations at the University of Macedonia, and Ms Machteld Zee, a political scientist and author. Finally, I was pleased that the committee held an exchange of views with Professor Mona Siddiqui, whom I have already mentioned.
Professor Sandberg from Cardiff University has recently said:
“Surely the issue of concern is whether people are pressurised into the form of alternative dispute resolution provided by Sharia councils? The Resolution distinguishes between situations where Muslims submit voluntarily and, alternatively, where they submit under social pressure”.
He says that the report does not pursue that any further and:
“That, however, is the nub of the issue.”
He goes on to say:
“Where the decision to use a religious authority for dispute resolution is genuinely voluntary on the part of both parties then this should be no more objectionable than any other form of alternative dispute resolution”—
provided that it also conforms with UK law.
As the Council’s report makes clear, sharia law is understood as the law to be obeyed by every Muslim. It divides all human action into five categories: what is obligatory, recommended, neutral, disapproved of and prohibited. It makes two forms of legal ruling: one designed to organise society and one to deal with everyday situations. It also has a legal opinion, intended to cover a special situation.
Sharia law, therefore, is meant in essence to be a positive law, enforceable on Muslims. Although most states with Muslim majorities have inserted in their constitutions a provision referring to Islam or Islamic law, the effect of those provisions is largely symbolic or confined to family law. Those religious provisions may have a legal effect if raised in the courts, and a political effect if they intrude into institutional attitudes and practices.
I shall consider the general principles of sharia law in relation to the European convention on human rights, particularly article 14, on the prohibition of discrimination on grounds such as sex and religion, and article 5 of protocol 7 to the convention, which establishes equality between spouses in law. Other aspects of the convention may also have an effect.
In Islamic family law, men have authority over women, because God has made the one superior to the other. It goes on to say that good women are obedient. It encourages women who stray from those norms to suffer punishment. In sharia law, adultery is strictly prohibited, and legal doctrine holds that the evidence must take the form of corroborating testimony from witnesses to prove an individual’s guilt. In the case of rape, which is seldom committed in public, there must be four male witnesses who are good Muslims, so punishing the rapist is difficult, if not impossible. In practice, women are obliged to be accompanied by men when they go out, which is not conducive to their independence.
Under Islamic law, a husband has a unilateral right to divorce, although it can be delegated to the wife and she can therefore exercise her right to divorce. Otherwise, she may initiate a divorce process but only with the consent of her husband, by seeking what is known as khula, in which case the wife forgoes her dowry. In cases where the husband has deserted the wife, has failed to co-operate with the divorce process or is acting unreasonably, the marriage may be dissolved, but only by a sharia ruling. While divorce by mutual consent is enshrined in Islamic law, the application must in this case come from the wife, since the husband can repudiate his wife at any time. There is also the question of equal rights regarding divorce arrangements, such as custody of children.
For the division of an estate among the heirs, distinctions are made according to the sex of the heir. A male heir has a double share, whereas a female heir has a single share. In addition, the rights of a surviving wife are half those of a surviving husband. Non-Muslims do not have the same rights as Muslims in criminal and civil law under sharia law. That applies, for example, to the weight attached to their testimony in court, which is discrimination on the grounds of religion within the meaning of articles 9 and 14 of the convention.
The European Court of Human Rights had the chance to rule on the incompatibility of sharia law with human rights in the early 2000s, in its judgment on the Welfare party v. Turkey, which held that
“Turkey, like any other Contracting Party, may legitimately prevent the application within its jurisdiction of private-law rules of religious inspiration prejudicial to public order and the values of democracy for Convention purposes (such as rules permitting discrimination based on the gender of the parties concerned, as in polygamy and privileges for the male sex in matters of divorce and succession).”
In that particular case, the decision by the Turkish constitutional court to order the dissolution of the Welfare party, which advocated the introduction of sharia law, was held to be compatible with the convention, and the Court clearly affirmed the following:
“It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.”
With respect to sharia law itself, the Court expressly stated that
“a political party whose actions seem to be aimed at introducing sharia in a State Party to the Convention can hardly be regarded as an association complying with the democratic ideal that underlies the whole of the Convention”.
However, although the Court has ruled that sharia law is incompatible with the convention, that does not mean that there is absolute incompatibility between the convention and Islam. The Court also recognised that religion is
“one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life”.
Accordingly, the Court’s relatively firm position should not be taken as a rejection of all elements of sharia or of Islam as a whole, while taking into account the existence of structural incompatibilities between Islam and the convention which, as far as sharia law is concerned, are sometimes absolute and sometimes relative.
It is also likely that a large number of cases concerning the position of Muslim women under Islamic law never come before the ordinary courts or the European Court of Human Rights because women are under enormous pressure from their families and their communities to comply with the demands of the informal religious courts. Such cases give rise to the question whether to use the concept of public order to refuse to recognise, or enforce, discriminatory decisions, even if they are not challenged by the women concerned.
There is currently no single accepted definition of the term “sharia council” in the United Kingdom, where such bodies generally provide advice and attempt to resolve disputes relating to family or personal issues according to the principles of sharia law. However, little is known about their work, which is conducted in private, and decisions are not published, leading to a lack of transparency and accountability. There is also uncertainty about the number of sharia courts operating in the UK. A study by the University of Reading identified 30 groups involved in such activity, and a report by the think-tank Civitas estimated that at least 85 groups are in operation, although that figure also includes informal tribunals run out of mosques or online forums.
Sharia councils provide a form of alternative dispute resolution, something I am very familiar with, having chaired the all-party parliamentary group on alternative dispute resolution for the past three years. Members of the Muslim community voluntarily consent to accept the religious jurisdiction of sharia councils. Marital issues and the granting of Islamic marriage divorces account for about 90% of their work. They also advise in matters of law, including issues of inheritance, probate and wills and Islamic commercial law contracts, and they provide mediation, counselling and religious ruling services.
Sharia councils are not considered part of the British legal system. They are not courts and their decisions are not legally binding. However, despite having no judicial authority, some councils see themselves as authoritative on religious issues, and the power of sharia councils lies in how they are perceived by their communities.
A significant number of Muslims do not have a marriage recognised under British law. Those who do not register their marriage under civil law, and some who have been married abroad, have little redress available to them, as their position under British law is similar to that of unmarried cohabitants who have few financial remedies on the breakdown of their relationship. A significant number of Muslim couples fail to civilly register their religious marriages, and some Muslim women therefore have no option of obtaining a civil divorce. Some women may have no other option but to obtain a religious divorce, for which the judgment of a sharia council is normally required.
Furthermore, even in cases where women have a civil law marriage, some might seek the decision of a sharia council for reasons of self-identity or community standing, or to provide reassurance that they have the religious freedom to remarry within their faith. Those who obtain a civil divorce but not a religious divorce might find it difficult to remarry—a position sometimes referred to as a “limping marriage”. One of the experts invited to testify before the committee, Ms Zee, denounced what she described as “marital captivity”.
There are numerous reports citing examples of how Muslim women have been discriminated against by sharia councils. Examples of such discrimination include women being pressured into mediation, including victims of domestic abuse; greater weight being given to the husband’s account of reasons for divorce; women not being questioned impartially by council members, who are almost all men, and feeling blamed for the breakdown of the marriage; and unjustified requirements to pay back their dowry.
There are also allegations that sharia councils have issued discriminatory rulings on child custody. The Casey review cited claims that
“some Sharia Councils have been supporting the values of extremists, condoning wife-beating, ignoring marital rape and allowing forced marriage.”
Researchers were told that
“some women were unaware of their legal rights to leave violent husbands and were being pressurised to return to abusive partners or attend reconciliation sessions with their husbands despite legal injunctions in place to protect them from violence.”
The majority of the evidence, however, is anecdotal, as little empirical evidence has been gathered in relation to users of sharia councils. Further research is therefore necessary; I am aware that the Select Committee on Home Affairs has done some work. Mechanisms are required to provide safeguards and ensure that vulnerable women are not exploited or put at risk. Many of the women are not aware of their rights to seek redress before the British courts.
Sharia councils should not be confused with arbitration tribunals. The Muslim arbitration Tribunal was established in 2007 under the Arbitration Act 1996. It operates within the framework of British law and its decisions can be enforced by civil courts, provided that they have been reached in accordance with the legal principles of the British system. Its legal authority comes from the agreement of both parties to give the tribunal power to rule on their case. In cases where decisions do not conform to the principles of British law, they may simply be quashed. Moreover, the 1996 Act cannot be used to exclude the jurisdiction of the family law courts. The MAT can therefore conduct arbitration according to Islamic personal law on issues such as commercial and inheritance disputes. Many of those issues were considered by Baroness Cox, who promoted the Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill in 2011. I will leave hon. Members to look at that.
The independent review was set up because sharia courts were deemed to be discriminating against women, as I have outlined. It has three recommendations. The first is to ensure that civil marriages are conducted before or at the same time as the Islamic marriage, in line with the way in which most Christian and many Jewish marriages are conducted. It also states that there should be a requirement for Muslim couples to civilly register their marriage, and that there be consequential changes to divorce.
I will skip the second recommendation and go to the third recommendation, which is to carry out some regulation of the sharia courts. The Government have declined to do that, for the obvious reason that that would legitimise the courts as part of the judicial establishment, which they have no intention of doing. To go back one, the second recommendation is for a general awareness campaign to acknowledge women’s rights and to inform women of those rights, including the fact that arbitration that applies sharia law in respect of financial or child arrangements falls foul of the Arbitration Act.
The independent review sets out several bad practices, including inappropriate and unnecessary questioning about personal relationship matters; asking a forced marriage victim to attend the sharia council at the same time as her family; insisting on any form of mediation as a necessary preliminary; and inviting women to make concessions to their husbands to secure a divorce. Lengthy processes also mean that, although divorces are rarely refused, they can be drawn out.
There are several other faults with the system, such as inconsistency, a lack of safeguarding policies or clear signposting, and the fact that, even with a decree absolute, a religious divorce is not always a straightforward process. Civil legal terms are adopted inappropriately, which leads to confusion. There are few women panel members of sharia councils, and some panel members have only recently moved to the UK, so they have no understanding of the UK system.
It is often proposed that, based on the evidence of discriminatory practices in some sharia councils, they should all be shut down and banned. The main problem with that argument is that a ban cannot be imposed on organisations that can set up voluntarily anywhere and that operate only on the basis of the credibility given to them by a certain community. The evidence that the review heard indicates that women use sharia councils almost solely to obtain religious divorces, for a number of different reasons, such as community acceptance of the divorce and their own remarriage hopes.
It is clear from all the evidence that sharia councils are fulfilling a need in some Muslim communities. There is a demand for religious divorce that is being answered by the sharia councils. That demand will not simply end if they are banned and closed down; instead, that could lead to them simply going underground, which would make it even harder to ensure good practice and would make discriminatory practices and greater financial costs more likely and harder to detect.
The main point is that there needs to be an acceptance of the law of the land, as there is within other communities, particularly the Jewish community, whose members accept that British law overrides their religious law. It is impossible to understand why somebody would enter a sharia court voluntarily, when they know that they are going to be under pressure to conform with whatever is said there. I discussed that with another Minister, who had better remain nameless. She was incandescent about sharia courts and told me to warn the Minister not to give a mealy mouthed response, or she would be after him. I mention that as an aside; I do not want to influence what the Minister will say at all, but that is a good indication that, particularly among women—that Minister was a Muslim lady—the effect of sharia courts is quite controversial. I am glad that the Home Affairs Committee took evidence on the issue.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I wear many hats in this debate, which I thank the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) for securing. Contrary to the accusations of Islamophobia, I am a Muslim woman who is a member of the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims. We have just launched our definition of Islamophobia, which I am proud that the Labour party has adopted; it would be useful if the hon. Gentleman’s party did, too. This debate, which brings the issue of sharia councils to the House, is welcome because it is right that we have such conversations.
I agree with many things that the hon. Gentleman has said. Sharia councils are not entirely fit for purpose, as I am only too familiar with as a former member of the Home Affairs Committee with the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). Before the review, the Committee took evidence from many people about sharia councils. Yes, 90% of their work is about divorces, and yes, despite that, they do not offer counselling services. I have raised that privately and publicly with imams and scholars across the board. I would also say, however, that while it is right that we debate the fact that sharia councils have a huge way to go, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
One thing I really struggled with in the previous speech was the idea that God made men superior to women. I am not a theologian; I am a politician, but one thing I am clear about as a Muslim woman is that my God did not make me unequal to a man. He gave me many rights and I enjoy those rights. One of those rights affords me being the Member of Parliament for Bradford West. Many Muslim men chose to vote for me and put me here. I disagree with the idea that in Islam, God makes men superior to women. The idea of needing four witnesses to rape is also news to me.
During our Select Committee inquiry, we also heard the idea that is out there, and peddled by the right-wing media, that sharia courts are taking over and replacing the British legal system and judiciary. There is absolutely no truth in that, because the first law of sharia—the first concept and the key tenet of it—is that the law of the land takes precedence.
I really struggle with the idea that somehow Muslims need to accept the law of the land—Muslims do accept the law of the land. The majority of Muslims in this country, as with the majority of people of any faith or the majority of people of no faith, accept the law of this land. However, many people still break the law of this land. If we look at prisons, we see that the people who are convicted of breaking the law of this land are not just Muslims. Muslims do have respect for the law, and I take it very personally and feel really offended at the suggestion that Muslims need to accept the law of the land. We do accept it.
There is not a requirement for there to be four witnesses to a rape, and as for the idea that a husband has a unilateral right to ask for a divorce, to return to the Select Committee inquiry, we heard lots of evidence against that. As a Muslim woman, I can instigate a divorce. Every Muslim woman in this country can instigate a divorce. A Muslim woman does not need the permission of her husband; she can instigate it, and she can go and get that divorce. That is a right afforded to every Muslim woman.
Yes, there is a question as to whether every sharia council actually implements that and works to the letter of the law and to its essence. And many sharia councils do discriminate. We have heard horrific—horrific—cases of women being discriminated against. The Select Committee took evidence from women who had been forced to go back to the perpetrator of violence against them, rather than reporting that violence. As a Select Committee, we went out and took our inquiry into the community. And yes, we heard of issues involving women where the arbitration service did not work, and where women were discriminated against—of course we did. However, that is no different from any other community. I have heard of lots of cases from constituents who were not happy with what had happened in a court of law because they felt that they had to do things that were not conducive to women’s rights.
I speak from experience. I speak as the daughter of a woman who was convicted of murdering an abusive partner and served 14 years in prison; I speak as a woman who had a forced marriage at the age of 15. So I am absolutely familiar with the patriarchal cultures within which women are oppressed and abused, and I stand very tall against them; I really do. I know that when my mother sought help from the community, she was not afforded it. However, let me say this: more than 25 years ago, when my mother was driven to do what she did, there were many other women in prison at the same time, and many other women who had killed their abusive partner. In fact, the majority of women who are in prison have experienced some form of abuse. Women do not just willy-nilly go and kill people; it is not what we do.
What I am saying is that when women are abused, it is not just the sharia councils that have a responsibility to respond. I won an award in 1998—the Emma Humphreys award—and that was one of the first times that the issue of abuse against women had been raised. Let us be clear: 90% of the sharia councils’ work is about divorce, which affects women. The nub of the issue for me is whether the sharia councils are fit for purpose for women, and treat women with equality and empower women. However, I agree that that is not the case at present.
Emma Humphreys was not a Muslim woman. There were many other women who went to prison for killing their partners. In those days, even judges did not have the understanding of domestic violence that we do today. So we as a country have come a long way. But in this country, which is such an advanced democracy, we have not got it right when it comes to women just yet. We have got a long way to go when it comes to giving women equality in courts of law, where there are years of experience and magnificent judges, but we still get it wrong.
So sharia courts do serve a purpose. They might not be brilliant and I absolutely agree that they need some regulation. Our Select Committee took evidence from the Muslim Women’s Network UK; perhaps the hon. Member for Henley could read the Committee’s report and read the evidence from the Muslim Women’s Network UK about sharia councils.
We all agree that sharia councils cannot be abolished, as that would send them underground and we do not want that to happen. This service has to be available. As a Muslim woman, I need the sharia council; I want to be able to access the sharia council, but yes, I also want it to be fit for purpose.
What I do not want is for this issue to be conflated with anything else. The hon. Member for Henley, at the start of his speech, said that he would be accused of Islamophobia for securing this debate, but I would argue that that is not the case. However, I will also point out something else that he said, which is something I really struggle with, and this is where we enter a grey area.
I do not have an issue with anybody criticising my religion; I have no issues with that whatsoever. The definition—the definition by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims—of Islamophobia clearly sets out that there is nothing wrong with people having a debate about what Islam is and what Islam is not. However, in this debate today the hon. Gentleman referred to the Casey review, and when talking about it he said that its findings included sharia councils supporting extremists and wife-beating. I get some of that context, but the whole idea of extremism in sharia councils—I have yet to come across that. That is not the debate that I hoped to have today, and I did not expect to hear the word “extremist” mentioned in this debate.
As I have said, 90% of sharia councils’ work is about divorce. In my constituency of Bradford West I have addressed gatherings, including majority male or male-dominated gatherings, and I have talked to people and said, “Why is it that we have so much money when we spend on the mosques, yet we are not talking about having counselling services for women, even though divorce is such a big deal, tearing children and families apart? We need to have those support services in place.”
So I agree that sharia courts need regulation, but what I do not accept, and will not accept, are all of these ideas about all of the sharia councils, including the idea that God has made men superior to women, the idea that there need to be four witnesses to a rape, and even the idea that someone needs to say the talaq three times for divorce, and that a divorce can just be granted and a woman has to accept it. No, she does not.
Let me tell people something else that the sharia councils could do if they were fit for purpose, which is what we should be working towards. We have a marriage contract—a nikah—and in that nikah a woman can stipulate that the man must forgo his religious idea of a polygamous marriage, such that he can take another wife. A woman can stipulate that in the contract. That contract is absolutely legally binding, as far as the sharia council is concerned, and the woman can divorce if that contract is breached. There is no need for her to have her husband’s permission.
However, what I want is for every Muslim woman in this country to understand that their nikah does not give them legal protection in this country. Their nikah—their marriage contract—does not give them the rights that a civil marriage does. And we should be absolutely promoting that message across the communities, to make sure that women are empowered.
I have come across men who have abused their position and taken on a second wife, even though a nikah is in place, and not respected the rights of their first wife; and I absolutely agree that we should be making sure that that practice does not exist. We need to make sure that women understand that they can write contracts, and we need to train the imams and other people in how to give women their rights, including their contractual rights. And we should say to women, “Look, think outside the box. If you don’t want this in a marriage—in a normal relationship, we have what we like and what we don’t like, and that is the same with a marriage in Islam.” There is nothing to stop any woman from doing that.
There are three things that I really want from this debate today. I want women who are listening to this debate, and the men who are listening to it, from all communities, to know that there is no Islamophobia in talking about sharia councils; in fact, such talk is very welcome. Sharia councils are not brilliant, they are not perfect, they have got a way to go, but we should support them and regulate them, or support them to regulate themselves, because communities have their own solutions; it is not necessary for us as a Parliament to impose solutions upon them.
We need to empower sharia councils; we need to get the regulations in place. We need to get women and men across the communities to understand that that contract does not give those rights under the law. As I have said before—I repeat it because I feel it is so important—the first tenet of sharia law is that the law of the land presides. The Daily Mail, The Sun and the right-wing media would have people believe that we have a parallel legal system running in this country. That does not exist. We are not about to bring sharia law into the country and take over. Less than 5% of the British community is Muslim, but somehow that 5% is taking over the whole of England’s British law? The 650 of us are making all of these laws, but somehow 5% of the community is taking over and is going to abolish all of what we have done for hundreds and hundreds of years? That is not going to happen.
Let us empower the women; let us talk to the Muslim communities, not about the Muslim communities. Let us change how we deal with this issue, not conflate it with words such as extremism when we are having a debate about sharia councils. Ninety percent of what those councils do is about divorce. Please, let’s not go there.
I make a plea to the Minister: please look at the APPG definition of Islamophobia. I have talked to the Home Secretary, I have asked the Prime Minister and many Ministers, and there is an absolute denial that Islamophobia exists in the Government. That needs to be addressed, and when we have addressed it, these debates will be much more constructive. They would not need to start with a Member of Parliament saying that he is going to be accused of being Islamophobic, because this is not Islamophobic; this is the right debate to have for the sake of women, of equality, and of all our communities.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) on having secured this important debate about sharia councils. I take part in this debate with some trepidation, as it is a complicated issue, touching on family law, freedom of religion, culture, gender relations and many other issues in between. It is quite right to say that our response should first and foremost be informed by the experiences and views of those most affected: those are, of course, Muslim women, 90% of whom are seeking a divorce. Their experience of sharia councils varies greatly, which reflects the fact that sharia councils themselves vary significantly. Unsurprisingly there is no unanimous opinion, even among Muslim women, on how—or whether—we in Parliament or the Government should respond to some of the issues that have been raised, both today and in other reports.
I too was a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs when it was looking at the issue of sharia councils. It was probably one of the most polarised issues that I looked at during my time on that Committee, involving widely diverging and strongly held opinions. On the one hand, at some of the events that the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) has described, I spoke to women who were absolutely positive about their experience with sharia councils and how they had secured divorces there; others pointed to horrendous practices and discrimination, which we have heard about.
Dr Siddiqui’s report found similar disparities in practice, but that review, as we have also heard, concluded that banning sharia councils is not a realistic option; I support that conclusion. There is demand for advice and guidance, for determinations on the meaning of religious texts and procedures, and for religious divorce. That review warned that if anything, such a ban would likely drive councils underground, making transparency even more difficult and risking more widespread bad practice and discrimination.
The second issue I want to touch on is how civil marriage law can play a role in this area. I make absolutely clear that I am not a family lawyer, so I will not go into fine detail about the specific proposals for marriage law reform in England and Wales that Dr Siddiqui’s review put forward. However, it does seem—the evidence suggests this—that a significant number of Muslim women in the UK have a religious marriage, but not one that is recognised by the civil law. As we have heard, that seriously limits the options and powers available to women, should that marriage then break down.
However, I went on to the website of Glasgow Central Mosque today to see what options there are for marriage. I was met with a well set-out and positive page that starts by celebrating the fact that
“Family life is a building block of a successful society, and marriage is an occasion of great joy.”
That page goes on to say:
“We can perform religious marriages, which are recognised by the law. A marriage ceremony (Nikah) at Glasgow Central Mosque must also be a religious marriage (i.e. the legal equivalent of a civil marriage conducted by a registrar). Our Imams are authorised to solemnise religious marriages, therefore it is not necessary to have a separate civil marriage. If the civil marriage has already taken place, please bring the marriage certificate on the day.”
I read an article by a Muslim woman who is a solicitor in Glasgow, who wrote about how the culture in the Glasgow mosques is one of working together to ensure that the civil requirements are met at the same time as the religious ones. It seems—of course, I stand to be corrected—that the general practice in that city has become to meet both religious and civil requirements at the same time. It would be good to know how that culture has come about. It would be good to find out what impact that has had on the number of women who are without a civil marriage in Glasgow and Scotland, and whether the doubling-up of those processes has been encouraged or helped by provisions in family law—slightly different in Scotland from those in England and Wales—or whether something else has made that happen. That could inform our thinking, both in Scotland and in England and Wales, as to whether there needs to be legal change or whether we can do more in terms of culture and awareness raising, as the hon. Member for Bradford West has said.
John Howell
For many years I have been an organist, and I have played at Catholic weddings. In many cases, the service has been delayed because of the late arrival of the registrar. A marriage conducted by a priest is religiously legal, but in order to make it civilly legal, a registrar has to be there. That seems to be the established position in the Catholic Church; as I understand it, only in the Anglican Church and the Church in Wales is the priest automatically a registrar.
Stuart C. McDonald
That is interesting to hear. If there is a way to remove such complications to ensure that such delays can be avoided, it should be looked at. I understand—I repeat, I am not a family lawyer, so I might be completely wrong—that that is not the position in Scotland, where priests are generally able to conduct both the religious and civil ceremonies in one go without the presence of a registrar. To my mind, that clearly makes things simpler.
The second group of recommendations in the Siddiqui report is essentially about empowering women, a topic on which I suspect we will all be at one. That seems to be front and centre of the issue that we face. There absolutely must be awareness raising about rights; for example, many of those who have ended up with a religious but not a civil marriage have done so purely because they did not know about the law or their status.
Awareness-raising about civil rights is only the first step in empowerment. Support is also needed to ensure that all are able to overcome the potentially “huge cultural barriers” described in the report, which can inhibit the exercise of rights even when people are aware that those rights exist. Those barriers stop women choosing to pursue civil remedies instead of religious ones. We need to give greater backing to all the NGOs, advice centres, human rights bodies and others that can provide that support. That is not just about supporting women to overcome barriers; those organisations can help to lower the barriers in the first place, encouraging a culture that respects women who choose to use their civil rights in the first place.
Do we need to go further? That question takes us on to the third group of recommendations in the Siddiqui report. The steps that we have just discussed about empowerment tend to focus on providing alternatives to sharia councils. We also need to ask whether we can improve practices in sharia councils themselves, which is perhaps the toughest issue.
As we have heard, the Siddiqui review recommended a form of regulation via a state-constituted body and a code of practice, and many sharia councils and women’s organisations supported such an approach. Presciently, the report acknowledged that the Government could be reluctant to adopt a wholesale regulatory approach for fear of being seen to legitimise a different system of law. I can understand that response, but it should not be an end to the matter. Not adopting full-scale regulation does not absolve us of the need to look at the seriously bad practices that have been recorded in some cases, how that relates to the law, and whether the law can be changed in other ways to stop those practices. If I understood it correctly, that was what the dissenting opinion in Dr Siddiqui’s report was getting at.
For example, should we require in law that anyone providing advice about family law matters must provide signposting to civil remedies? How should the law respond if an institution is seen to aid and abet domestic violence by coercing a victim to mediate with the perpetrator? Are there existing regulations in respect of “service providers” that could be strengthened and better applied to stop the serious issues that we have seen? What should happen if evidence shows that councils are undertaking tasks that should be exclusively for the courts? Crucially, given that consent is so important, what is the legal response when certain councils are engaging in proceedings, providing opinions and making judgments when there was never genuine consent to the process in the first place? I do not have the answers to all those questions, but we have to consider them and be led by the evidence, particularly the evidence we hear from those who have been caught up in these processes.
On balance the Siddiqui review is correct that banning would be ineffective, counterproductive and not justified. The main objective must be to encourage the use of civil processes and access to civil redress and rights where appropriate. Marriage law changes might help with that, but more importantly, so too might policies that empower women, such as support for NGOs and other groups. While a distinct form of regulation and a complete new regulatory regime may not be the right approach, that does not mean that we should not be looking at whether other civil and criminal laws and regulations could be better applied to stop or prevent some of the bad practice we have heard about. If we do all that, hopefully we can continue to protect the sharia councils that are doing a job that accords with all the values we want to be upheld, while at the same time clamping down on those that are not.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I begin by commending the speeches that have been made from the Back Benches, starting with the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). I acknowledge his expertise and interest in this issue. I also acknowledge his work in the Council of Europe and the Justice Committee and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on alternative dispute resolution. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) on her passionate speech. I congratulate her on her work in the all-party parliamentary group and her work in our party on the definition of Islamophobia that has been adopted. I also congratulate her on the experience and expertise she brought to the debate today, both in terms of the workings of sharia councils and the extraordinarily passionate and personal section in her speech on her fight against patriarchal culture wherever it is found in our society. I thought she said something extraordinarily true when she said we should always look to talk to communities, not about them. That is something we can all take away from this debate.
As my hon. Friend set out—I echo it—there is nothing Islamophobic at all in bringing this debate forward. It has been a good debate across the board, but I want to speak about Islamophobia not only in the context of this debate, but in the wider context of our society and the time in which the debate takes place. We all acknowledge that Islamophobia and far-right attacks on Muslims here in the UK and across much of the world are rising. The figures show a record number of such attacks and incidents of abuse, and recently five mosques in Birmingham were vandalised on a single night. That does not happen in a vacuum.
While I do not want to stray beyond the confines of this debate, I do think that not only social media companies but the mainstream media have a responsibility for how such matters are covered. Indeed, the UK’s assistant commissioner at the Metropolitan police—the national head of our anti-terrorism measures in the UK—Neil Basu said:
“The reality is that every terrorist we have dealt with has sought inspiration from the propaganda of others, and when they can’t find it on Facebook, YouTube, Telegram or Twitter they only have to turn on the TV, read the paper or go to one of a myriad of mainstream media websites struggling to compete with those platforms.”
He was referring to the wake of the terrible Christchurch attacks in New Zealand and the fact that mainstream media were spreading the awful streaming of that terrible attack. We even see anti-Muslim sentiment whipped up in relation to the food that many Muslims eat. Clearly we all stand together in condemnation of such discrimination, abuse and hatred.
Protection of the rights of religious minorities is an essential feature of any democratic society, and there is a richness to our culture in the United Kingdom. We have people who practise many different religions. It is right that the state should not prevent people from acting according to their religious beliefs and cultural traditions, provided that, first, it does not break the law—I include in that being compliant with our human rights obligations—and, secondly, it is always a product of free choice and by consent.
In that regard, I think we can pick up certain positive aspects, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West indicated. Mediation is based on consent with an agreement on process from both parties, and we can see that happening. We have heard about the percentage of divorces that are dealt with by sharia councils, but such things as boundary disputes, housing, wills, probate and estates can be dealt with, too. We can see positive outcomes when there is agreement on process. In addition, the hon. Member for Henley mentioned the work of the 2007 Muslim arbitration tribunal in that regard.
It is important that we stick to facts when it comes to any form of alternative dispute resolution or religious council, because there is no suggestion that they somehow trump or overrule the rule of law.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Indeed. I mentioned that when I intervened on the hon. Member for Henley, who referred to them as councils in his speech. One of the conclusions drawn by the Home Office’s independent report was that the real problem with using “courts” is that it gives the impression that there is a parallel or competing courts system when there is not. That is an extraordinarily important point, and it brings me to my next point, which is that we have to be very wary of misinformation, particularly given the idea that Parliament is somehow introducing this parallel law. That is clearly not the case. It is incumbent on us all to make that clear and to be careful about the language that we use in that regard.
To draw my remarks to a close, the two pillars have to be the rule of law, which will always be paramount, and a basis of consent. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West spoke extraordinarily powerfully about the role of women. She is an example of a woman in an extraordinary role and an exemplar to others. We must bear in mind, too, that human rights are always central to how we judge any form of alternative dispute resolution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, not least because it protects me from being challenged by difficult questions from someone who did my job many years ago with great skill and knowledge.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) on securing this debate, which addresses an area of significant interest and importance. It is right that this House debates such issues. The work of the Council of Europe has no greater champion or more active participant than my hon. Friend. I am very pleased to be able to respond to the debate. It was due to be responded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), until his well-deserved promotion yesterday evening, so I confess that I am not an expert in this area, but I have been fascinated by the debate.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken part late on a Thursday afternoon. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), not only for the passion and power that she habitually brings to her speeches, but for the depth of her knowledge and understanding of the subject. I am pleased she was able to be here.
I also recognise the contribution of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who spoke in his usual measured and sensible tone. His contribution was particularly valuable in highlighting the practice in Glasgow, which he touched on.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I omitted to mention the speech of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) not because I did not think that it was impressive, but simply because I treated it as a Front-Bench contribution, not a Back-Bench one. I join the Minister in commending the speech.
Edward Argar
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; I was about to respond to his speech. As ever, he made a powerful and sensible case. He highlighted, as other Members have, the importance of choosing our words with care when we speak in this House, not just on this subject but on all subjects, and the responsibility that we all have, and the broader responsibility of the media and others in this space, to choose our words with care.
I will set out the Government’s position on sharia law. As the Prime Minister has said, and as Members have mentioned today, there is one rule of law in the United Kingdom. In practice, that means, within each of the UK jurisdictions, a single system of law, legislated according to our constitutional arrangements by this Parliament or the devolved Administrations. Our judicial systems interpret, apply and, where necessary, enforce those laws. There is no parallel system of sharia law in operation in the UK; Her Majesty’s courts enforce our laws. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley was right to say that sharia law is not part of the British legal system. We must ensure that we do not succour such misinformation or misconceptions beyond these walls.
Our vision for our communities is that all British citizens, whatever their religious background, should be free to practise individual religious freedom. Many British people of different faiths and none benefit a great deal from the guidance that religious codes and other practices offer. Those values allow us to enjoy our individual freedoms and to lead varied lives in diverse communities. That is one of the great strengths of this great country; however, it has to be within a framework in which citizens share and respect common rights and responsibilities, with unfettered access to national law and our legal institutions to enforce those rights when necessary. Equal access to the law is a key benefit of living in a democratic society. As the hon. Member for Bradford West highlighted, that respect for the law is, I hope and believe, shared by everyone in our country, irrespective of background, gender, religion or any other factor.
If there is any conflict between religious practices and national law, national law must, and will, always prevail. In particular, I highlight the Equality Act 2010 and, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), highlighted, our strong and important human rights legislation and the framework behind it. The Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government lead on the broader issues surrounding faith, community integration and British values. The Ministry of Justice is responsible for the operation of the justice system, including the use of non-court dispute resolution services such as mediation, and for the law governing marriage.
I heard the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley on the use of sharia religious principles and the operation of sharia councils. In particular, he highlighted concerns about various forms of discrimination on the basis of sex or religion in family matters, in particular divorce, in relation to the evidential weight applied. I acknowledge too the views set out by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in its resolution, passed in January this year, about the need to combat all forms of discrimination based on religion. As my noble and learned Friend Lord Keen of Elie has said, people may choose to abide by the interpretation and application of sharia principles if they wish to do so, provided their actions do not conflict with national law; however, that must be their free choice, and does not supersede national law.
The resolution reiterated the obligation on Council of Europe member states to protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as enshrined in article 9 of the European convention on human rights. That right represents one of the pillars of a democratic society, and we share the Council’s view of that important principle. The resolution also noted that the exercise of the right to manifest one’s religion may be subject to some limitations necessary in a democratic society; it is not an unqualified right. Furthermore, it noted that the operation of religion should never act to limit or remove other convention rights or freedoms to which citizens in a democratic society are entitled, and we agree with that too.
While supporting and, I argue, even encouraging pluralism, the resolution expressed concern about the official or unofficial application of what it termed “sharia law” in several Council of Europe member states. As hon. Members have set out, in relation to the UK specifically the Council of Europe set out its concern about what it views as the judicial activities of sharia councils that, although not part of the British legal system, attempt to provide a form of alternative dispute resolution.
The resolution drew attention to members of the Muslim community, sometimes voluntarily but sometimes under pressure from peers or their own conscience, accepting the religious jurisdiction of such councils. The resolution further noted that it occurs mainly with regard to marital issues involving divorce, as the hon. Member for Bradford West said, and some matters related to inheritance and commercial contracts. The resolution expressed concern that the rulings of sharia councils could discriminate against women in divorce and inheritance cases.
The UK Government are clear that all rules, practices and bodies, including systems of alternative dispute resolution, must operate within the rule of law. Our law provides for a formal system of legally binding arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996, which allows parties to consent to apply a system of law other than English law, with appropriate procedural safeguards to protect against duress or coercion. Arbitral decisions can play an important role, but only if the necessary procedural requirements and legal safeguards are satisfied. Most types of family dispute can be resolved in a legally binding way only if they are adjudicated by the courts.
The Government understand the concerns that some Members have set out about the operation of sharia councils. Indeed, the resolution on the basis of which the debate has been tabled acknowledged and welcomed the Home-Office-commissioned independent review, chaired by Professor Mona Siddiqui and commissioned by the now Prime Minister. That review looked at whether sharia law was being misused or applied in a way that is incompatible with domestic law in England and Wales, and whether there were discriminatory practices against women who use such councils.
Naz Shah
Does the Minister welcome, as I do, the finding in that review that, despite the fact that there is understood to be a conflict in very minute parts of sharia law, in terms of inheritance being discriminatory, in this country that would not apply because the rule of our law would override all of it in any case?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the primacy of our national domestic law in that context.
The review was published by the Government in 2018, with the Council of Europe calling the recommendations
“a major step towards a solution”.
The review found evidence of a range of practices across sharia councils, both positive and negative, and made three recommendations, which have been touched upon. Some of them mirror, or are very similar to, the UK-specific proposals set out in the Council of Europe resolution. I will run through them, as other hon. Members have, and respond on behalf of the Government.
The review’s first recommendation was to amend marriage law to ensure that civil marriages are conducted before, or at the same time, as the Islamic marriage ceremony, thereby establishing the right to a civil divorce and to financial protection on divorce. The law already provides the option to solemnise a legally valid Islamic marriage if it takes place in a mosque registered for worship and for marriage, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East mentioned. However, we understand and appreciate that many Muslims choose to marry at home and, as the hon. Member for Bradford West said, may be unaware that that means that their ceremony, while religiously recognised, is not recognised under national law.
We will continue to engage with key stakeholders, including faith groups, academics and lawyers, to test their views on the policy and the legal challenges of limited reform relating to the law on marriage and religious ceremonies. I am keen for us to make as rapid progress as possible, but as the tenor of this debate has shown and as hon. Members will recognise, this is a sensitive area that involves the expression of religious freedom, so it is important that we get any changes right.
With respect to the current marriage law, the second recommendation proposed developing programmes to raise awareness among Muslim couples that Islamic marriages do not afford them the legal protection that comes with a civil marriage—a point that the hon. Lady made very powerfully. The cross-Government integrated communities action plan, which is led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, commits to supporting awareness campaigns to educate and inform couples and their children of the benefits of having a civil marriage alongside a religious marriage. The plan is a powerful opportunity to drive our vision for integrated communities in the UK. As the Prime Minister has said, we will use it to proudly promote the many values that unite us, including democracy, free speech, human rights and the rule of law—values that allow us to enjoy our individual freedoms and lead varied lives in diverse communities.
The third recommendation proposed regulating sharia councils by creating a state-established body with a code of practice for the councils to adopt and implement. The review team’s failure to reach a unanimous agreement on that proposal demonstrates the complexity of the issues involved. The Government consider that a state-facilitated or endorsed regulation scheme for such councils could confer on them a degree of legitimacy as alternative forms of dispute resolution and risk introducing what might be perceived as a parallel system of law. As the then Home Secretary set out at the time, the Government do not consider it an appropriate role of the state to act in that way.
Naz Shah
Does the Minister agree that the role that the Government have to play in these communities, as in any communities, is to support them in getting to where they need to be with sharia councils to make them compliant with our existing laws on non-discrimination regardless of gender?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I believe that the Government have an obligation in a range of areas to do what we can to ensure that all bodies and organisations comply with our national laws. She is right that it is incumbent on us all to encourage compliance with the laws that we make in this House.
The Home Office review found some evidence of sharia councils in England and Wales forcing women to make concessions to gain a divorce, of inadequate safeguarding policies and of a failure to signpost applicants to legal remedies. That is clearly not acceptable, as the hon. Lady made clear in her speech. Where sharia councils exist, they must abide by the law. Legislation is in place to protect the rights of women and prevent discriminatory practice; the Government will work with the appropriate regulatory authorities to ensure that that legislation and the protections that it establishes are being enforced fully and effectively.
The Council of Europe’s resolution calls on the UK authorities to do more to
“remove the barriers to Muslim women’s access to justice…step up measures to provide protection and assistance to those who are in a situation of vulnerability…conduct further research on the ‘judicial’ practice of Sharia councils and on the extent to which such councils are used voluntarily, particularly by women, many of whom would be subject to intense community pressure in this respect.”
The Government are clear that we must do more to support people in faith communities to make informed choices about how to live their lives. Key to that is our work on integration and on a shared understanding of British values and the system of law that underpins them. My colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will consider those points further as work progresses on the integrated communities action plan.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight that point. I believe that our values, which include the rule of law and the belief in human rights and democracy, are shared throughout our whole country, irrespective of people’s background, gender, age or religion.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley again for giving us the opportunity to debate these important issues. I assure him that what he and other hon. Members have said today has been heard, and that my colleagues across Government and I will consider carefully all the points that have been raised on all sides.
I conclude by repeating what I said at the beginning of my speech: many British people of different faiths benefit a great deal from the guidance that their religious codes, beliefs and practices offer. Such values allow us to enjoy our individual freedoms and lead varied lives in the diverse communities that are a hallmark of our country, but that has to happen within a framework in which citizens can share and respect common rights and responsibilities as they share in the benefits of living in this great country. There is, and remains, one rule of law in the United Kingdom, democratically enacted by this Parliament and the devolved Administrations, and applied by our independent judicial system.
Today’s important debate has been conducted in a manner that does credit to this House, which those who watch our proceedings may not always think is the case. It has been a very worthwhile way of spending our afternoon.
John Howell
Once again, may I express my gratitude to all Members who stayed for this debate, especially the three Front-Bench Members? It has been very useful.
I said earlier that sharia councils should in no way be abolished, and that they provide a useful function in Muslim communities. I stick by that—they certainly do. However, there are two issues that I think we all agree are important. The first is the protection and empowerment of women; I am as keen that that should happen as any Member of this House, and a lot of my remarks were directed towards ensuring that it does. The second issue is human rights, which the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) mentioned and to which, as a delegate to the Council of Europe, I am absolutely committed. I pointed out how differences in human rights approaches have been raised in the Council of Europe; if we had the time, we could go through the situation in all the countries that the Council has looked at.
I am grateful to hon. Members for their participation and their help in raising this important subject. I agree that it is very sensitive, but that does not mean that we should not raise it or talk about it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Sharia law courts in the UK.
Written Statements
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
(5 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I represented the UK at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 15 April.
The main item on the agenda was the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) post-2020, with a focus on the proposed new green architecture. Ministers highlighted their willingness to commit to higher levels of overall ambition such as spending 30% of pillar 2 funding on climate change actions, and endorsed the new policy design. However, some member states also pressed for large chunks of the Commission’s proposals to be optional, including some of the Commission’s eco-schemes.
This was followed by a ministerial lunch debate which focused on the impact of large carnivores and other species on agriculture. The Commission’s position that 100 % state aid was permissible to compensate for attacks on livestock did not satisfy several member states, who wanted greater latitude for farmers to shoot wolves and other predators.
Council reconvened with an exchange of views on the task force in rural Africa, with the final report proposing a new alliance between the EU and Africa. I intervened on the item, highlighting the importance of developing countries in the global food supply and giving examples from UK projects that increase smallholder inclusion in the value chain and empower women economically.
Commissioner Hogan also provided an update on the market situation, describing a stable and positive picture overall with concerns in sugar, apples and pears, and olive oil.
A number of other items were discussed under “any other business”:
The Netherlands informed Council about EU action against deforestation and forest degradation. I intervened, stressing our support for the proposal and encouraged the Commission to prepare an ambitious communication to step up action against deforestation.
Slovakia presented its joint declaration with the Czech Republic and Poland on the renewable energy directive post-2020.
The presidency informed the Council of the outcome of the research and agriculture conference held in Bucharest on 5 April.
[HCWS1534]
Foreign Affairs Council: 8 April 2019
(5 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I attended the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 8 April. It was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini. The meeting was held in Luxembourg.
Current affairs
The High Representative and Foreign Ministers had an exchange of views on the most pressing issues on the international agenda. In particular, they expressed their concern over developments in Libya. They urged all parties to implement immediately a humanitarian truce, refrain from any further military escalation and return to the negotiations. They reiterated their full support for the efforts of the UN Special Representative Ghassan Salamé in working towards peace and stability in Libya.
Foreign Ministers also referred to the implementation of the penal code order in Brunei and expressed their strong opposition to cruel and degrading punishments, prohibited by the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which was signed by Brunei in 2015.
In relation to the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, the Council reiterated the EU's strong opposition to the extraterritorial application of unilateral restrictive measures, which it considered contrary to international law.
Afghanistan
Ministers discussed the situation in Afghanistan. They focused on how the EU could best contribute to current peace efforts. The High Representative debriefed Ministers on her visits to Islamabad on 25 March and Kabul on 26 March.
Eastern partnership
Ministers discussed the eastern partnership (EaP) in view of the EaP ministerial meeting (13 May) and the high-level event (14 May) to mark the EaP’s 10th anniversary. Ministers highlighted the importance of the partnership, which is based on shared values and principles, and an approach combining inclusivity and differentiation.
Ministers welcomed the progress achieved with eastern partnership countries within the “20 deliverable for 2020” framework, and in particular the tangible and concrete results in trade, people-to-people contact, transport, connectivity, infrastructure and economic reform. They agreed that implementation of reforms in sectors such as governance, anticorruption and the judiciary require additional efforts.
Informal lunch on Venezuela
Foreign Ministers exchanged views on Venezuela. They discussed the outcome of the second meeting of the international contact group (ICG) on 28 March in Quito. They agreed to step up work on the two tracks of the ICG: facilitating humanitarian access, and creating the conditions for free, fair, transparent presidential elections.
Council conclusions
The Council agreed a number of measures without discussion:
The Council adopted conclusions on the Afghanistan’s peace process.
The Council endorsed the framework on counter-terrorism, developed jointly by the UN and the EU. The framework identifies areas for UN-EU co-operation and priorities until 2020.
The Council endorsed the 2018 progress report on the EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The Council concluded the agreement establishing the EU-Latin America and the Caribbean international foundation.
The Council adopted conclusions on the European Court of Auditors’ special report No 15/2018 entitled “Strengthening the capacity of the internal security forces in Niger and Mali: only limited and slow progress”.
The Council authorised the signature of the EU-Pakistan strategic engagement plan on behalf of the EU.
The Council endorsed the continuation of the EU’s action in support of the UN verification and inspection mechanism for Yemen (UNVIM), from 1 April 2019 to 30 September 2019. The EU is contributing €4.9 million to UNVIM for one year.
The Council authorised the opening of negotiations with Vietnam for an agreement to establish a framework for its participation in EU crisis management operations.
The Council adopted conclusions on an EU strategic approach to international cultural relations and a framework for action (ST 7749/19).
[HCWS1535]
Police Pursuits Consultation
(5 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
Last year, we published a public consultation on the initial findings of a review of the legislation, guidance and practice surrounding police driving in England, Wales and Scotland. As we said last May, this Government are determined to get ahead of and tackle emerging threats like motorcycle-related crimes, including those involving mopeds and scooters. People must be able to go about their daily lives without fear of harassment or attack and criminals must not think they can get away with a crime by riding or driving in a certain way or on a certain type of vehicle.
Since this work commenced, we have already seen an impact on offending behaviour through operational responses, such as ensuring that merely removing a crash helmet will not result in the police discontinuing a pursuit. The Government will continue to work closely with the police in England, Wales and Scotland, the College of Policing and other organisations to clarify driver training standards, including the requirements for refresher training.
I am grateful to the 383 individuals and organisations that responded to the consultation, including 222 police officers, forces and other related organisations. We will be publishing a full response later today on gov.uk. I am pleased to confirm that the overwhelming majority of responses were supportive of the proposals set out in the consultation, either in full or in principle. In addition, during and since the consultation period, we have also continued to work with the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Police Federation, the National Police Chiefs Council and others in order to refine our proposals.
The Government will seek to introduce a new test to assess the standard of driving of a police officer when parliamentary time allows. This new test will compare the standard of driving against that of a careful, competent and suitably trained police driver in the same role rather than use the existing test which compares driving against a standard qualified driver who would not normally be involved in police action.
As a result of the responses to the consultation and the related work, the Government have also decided to examine how we can best:
Make clear that police officers should not be regarded as being accountable for the driving of a suspected criminal who is attempting to avoid arrest by driving in a dangerous manner, providing the pursuit is justified and proportionate.
Review the various emergency service exemptions to traffic law to ensure they remain fit for purpose.
We have been clear from the beginning of this review that we must ensure that the outcome of these changes enables the police to do their job effectively and keep us safe while ensuring that we continue to keep our roads among the safest in the world. I believe that the action we intend to take will do just that, while giving police officers greater confidence that they will be appropriately protected by the law if they drive in accordance with their training with a view to protecting the public.
We would like to develop a uniform approach across Great Britain and will engage with the devolved Administrations in recognition of devolved interests.
[HCWS1536]
House of Lords
Amputees: Limb Fitting
Lord McColl of Dulwich
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to introduce a national system of recording (1) the number of, (2) the treatment received by, and (3) the dates of treatments for, new amputees attending limb fitting centres in England.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for his continuing interest in wanting to improve services in this important area. As an ex-surgeon he has significant expertise and insight. From 1 April this year, NHS England’s specialised commissioning has required all limb centres delivering amputee services to complete a data reporting template which will collect the information described. The data is not expected to be published as a national statistic but is collected to support the commissioning process.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her usual helpful reply. She has done so well in stimulating the Department of Health, because in November last year the department told us that it did not collect this information centrally—so I am very glad that she has had success. Will the information be collated?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, the data collection is not expected to be published routinely but is submitted by the provider to the relevant commissioning hub as a contractual requirement under schedule 6 of the NHS contract information reporting requirements. But I hope that my noble friend will be pleased to hear that we will be considering making available a summary of this data in due course once we have established that it has been collected and reported appropriately.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, being fitted with a new knee can completely change a person’s life. Can the Minister tell the House what advice is given to clinical commissioning groups about commissioning knee replacements? Living in Cornwall, I would be treated sooner than if I lived on the Isle of Wight. When does the Minister expect the wait on the Isle of Wight to be the same as in Cornwall?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I hope that any variation in any service is dealt with and reduced as much as possible. As the noble Baroness will be aware, NHS England commissions the prostheses centrally and has a service specification. It has a duty to reduce inequalities in access to health services and in the health outcomes achieved, as enshrined in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Certainly the principle is to reduce inequalities.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that three weeks ago I was the recipient of a new knee—and what a wonderful job the National Health Service does in Stoke-on-Trent?
Baroness Manzoor
I thank my noble friend for his support for the NHS. I hope that his new knee continues to work effectively and properly for a very long time.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister. First, many people face an amputation as a result of diabetes. What progress is the national prevention programme making in reducing the number of amputations? Secondly, the Minister will know that NHS England organised a patient survey last year. It reported that one of the biggest issues for people was getting a comfortable and timely socket fit. People expressed frustration that it was not always a get it right first time situation. That is vital, so my second question is about quality control as well as collecting data.
Baroness Manzoor
I thank the noble Baroness. NHS England invested more than £9 million of transformation funding in 2017-18 to further reduce amputation rates in people with diabetes by putting in place new and expanded multidisciplinary footcare teams. Overall, the incidence of major amputations in England is now one of the lowest internationally because of this investment. As the noble Baroness correctly said, a review was undertaken. Clinicians will look at the outcomes of that review and take the appropriate action in due course to ensure that some of the complaints made have been addressed adequately.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, is it proposed that amputees from the Armed Forces, whether serving or retired, will be included as a subgroup, bearing in mind the importance of maintaining the military covenant?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, the military provide dedicated and important service and it is right and fundamental that we support them in their time of need. The Veterans’ Prosthetics Panel supports members of the Armed Forces community who require prosthetics and ensures that they receive the latest prosthetics, including with next-generation microprocessors. More than 97% of claims were approved in 2016-17 and more than £1.5 million was spent on prosthetic centres.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Will the statistics include amputations as a result of sepsis? I declare an interest as having a family member who was affected by this. Perhaps that would be a motivation and inspiration to encourage an increased awareness of sepsis.
Baroness Manzoor
I am very sorry to hear of the experience that the noble Baroness’s family has faced. Sepsis is an important issue, and we are dealing effectively with ensuring that we bring it under control. All amputations as a result of whatever issue are taken very seriously and we are offering the same kind of service so that we cut down the variations in the system. The current review will take into consideration all issues that patients have raised.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the relationship between amputations and type 1 diabetes, the worrying aspect is the great variation in amputation rates across England. Does the Minister agree that areas that have high rates of amputation should be asked to look at how they can follow the guidelines issued by NICE to reduce the rates?
Baroness Manzoor
I agree that it is important that we reduce the variations and that NICE guidelines are followed. NHS England’s service specifications include a duty to reduce inequalities. They set out a number of issues to ensure that there is improved access, including flexible appointments, rehabilitation and reablement—but the noble Lord is quite right that we must address the variations.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
Does the Minister agree that the way to reduce the number of amputations is to reduce the causes of them, one of which is the obesity epidemic? If a person’s waist measurement is more than half their height, it means that they are eating too much of the gross national product.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, absolutely. As someone who has had a problem with her weight all her life, I do agree. Losing weight is not as easy to do it as it is to say, but obesity plays a key role in diabetes and we need to get it under control.
Scottish Government: Discussions
(5 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when their Ministers will next meet Ministers from the Scottish Government, and what will be discussed at that meeting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the UK Government have frequent engagement with the Scottish Government. UK and Scottish Ministers are due to meet on 9 May 2019 at the meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations. I am scheduled to meet Scottish Ministers as part of the Defra devolved Administrations Inter Ministerial Group for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 20 May 2019. The agendas for both meetings are yet to be finalised.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, next week sees the 20th anniversary of the first elections to the devolved Scottish Parliament. I am sure that the whole House would want to congratulate the civil servants and legislators who, despite all the political ups and downs of the last 20 years, created such a stable institution that has legislated and budgeted on a consistent basis, despite one party rarely having a political majority. The success of the scheme was based on debate and discussion about the constitutional convention and very well thought-through legislation. In view of the fact that, whatever happens with Brexit, there needs to be a good, hard look at the UK’s constitutional arrangements and our relationship with the public, is it not the case that a model such as a constitutional convention, looking on an all-party basis at improving the governance of the United Kingdom as a whole, might be a way forward in these times?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the sterling efforts of all those civil servants who brought about a functioning and sustainable Scottish Parliament and, indeed, a Welsh Assembly Government. There has been extraordinary progress and it is right that we recognise that this is a process, not an event. Last year, the Government set up, alongside the Welsh and Scottish Governments, an intergovernmental review and it will be reporting soon. Let us see what comes of that. However, the noble Lord is correct that this is a process and we cannot let this be the end of it. We must make sure that it continues to deliver as we would like it to do.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, notwithstanding that the Labour Party campaigned in 1978 on a slogan of “Devolution will kill nationalism stone dead”, will my noble friend use the opportunity of the meeting with Scottish Ministers to discuss their plans to secede from the United Kingdom while remaining subject to control by Brussels and, in particular, ask them to explain how they will avoid a hard border between England and Scotland? Doing so might help my noble friend with his problems over the backstop.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I will certainly raise several of those issues. I do not think it will surprise my noble friend to know that Scottish Ministers themselves often raise these very issues. The meeting I had was focused rather more on the environment and farming; none the less, the issues he raises are important and they will be part of the ongoing debate between the Scottish and UK Governments.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, on the relationship between devolution and separation, referred to by the noble Lord, will the Minister confirm that after 17 years of devolution, when the Scottish people were asked to decide whether to separate from the United Kingdom or stay in it, they decisively decided to stay in it?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord is spot on. The Scottish people were very canny and very clever, and they voted very correctly.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, this time last year, during the final stages of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, never a day seemed to go by when we did not discuss common UK frameworks. Can the Minister perhaps update us on what is happening? It seems to have gone quiet. How will he ensure that in areas of shared responsibility there is parity of esteem and there will not be direction from Westminster?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble and learned Lord is correct. There needs to be parity of esteem in all these discussions. The intergovernmental review should look at the functioning of the frameworks. The existing joint ministerial committees can be improved, and I suspect that the improvements will emerge from the intergovernmental review.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, the Scottish Government decided to lower the blood alcohol limit for drivers, but I have not been able to find out whether that has been successful in reducing the casualty rate. Can my noble friend tell us whether it has been successful? If not, will he undertake to write to me with the stats?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I will very much undertake to write to my noble friend with those statistics—I do not have them to hand.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, we should take this opportunity to congratulate those present who were Members of the first Scottish Parliament. We should go beyond intergovernmental discussions to look into inter-parliamentary contact, and take this opportunity to consider a more federal approach to the UK. Having set that in motion in 1997, we cannot now step back and say that nothing else can change. This is a perfect opportunity to make those changes. I hope the Minister will agree.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
It is important that we continue to learn about what is going on. It is also true that, while we have very strong working relationships Government to Government, that might not be as well established Parliament to Parliament. There is no doubt that there would be a benefit in that—the learning of this House could well be useful in informing the Scottish Parliament. Beyond that, it will be difficult to see until we have the results of the intergovernmental review.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the Scottish Government have taken a lead in agreeing that universal credit should be paid separately to each member of a couple—not least to protect women surviving domestic abuse. However, they are wholly dependent on the Department for Work and Pensions and changes to the IT system to enable them to implement the policies. What active steps are the department taking to help the Scottish Government do this, and thereby enable the DWP itself to learn from Scottish experience? If the Minister cannot answer, could a letter be written that can go into the Library?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The UK Government have been very diligent in reaching out to the Scottish Government on the devolution of benefits. This is for one very important reason: people’s lives are at stake, and their well-being is at the heart of this. I will of course send a letter to the noble Baroness setting out the answer to that question in greater detail, but please be assured that the UK Government take their role very seriously—as indeed do the Scottish Government.
Farming Communities: Rural Crime
(5 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of rural crime on farming communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. Crime, wherever it takes place, has serious repercussions. Assessments through the crime victimisation survey show that vandalism and theft were the most common crimes experienced by agriculture, forestry and fishing businesses. In addition to theft of agricultural instruments and machinery, fly-tipping, poaching and livestock worrying are also particular concerns for farmers. NFU Mutual’s Rural Crime Report 2018 estimated the cost of rural crime was £44.5 million in 2017.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for his reply. I recently met with a group of Hertfordshire farmers, and among the many areas they raised with me was the problem of hare coursing, which is not only causing great damage to their land in some cases but means they receive threats of physical violence. It is a very difficult problem. The low level of prosecution shows that the current law is not making any impact on this at all, and those who have looked into it believe that some simple changes in the law could make a great difference. Would the Minister commit to looking afresh at whether we can reform the Game Act 1831 and the Night Poaching Act 1828 to bring the seizure and forfeiture powers into line with the Hunting Act 2004?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I also last week met Stuart Roberts, the vice-president of the NFU who farms in Hertfordshire. Clearly, the intimidation and fear of gangs arriving on people’s land, often at night, is wholly unacceptable and must be addressed. I take the point that the right reverend Prelate has made about some fairly old Acts, but there is also the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960. What the police are doing with Operation Galileo in Lincolnshire, where there was a 30% reduction last year, is a way forward. I also commend the six forces in the east of England which have come together to share intelligence to help put an end to this devastating activity for farmers, particularly those in the eastern and southern counties.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, is this not fundamentally an issue of police resources? The current policing formula does not really take account of the particular challenges and problems in rural areas. The Minister talked about organised criminal gangs; as we know, they are operating in a number of areas, stealing livestock and farm machinery, almost to order. They cause real distress to isolated local communities. Would the Minister agree to speak to his colleagues in the Home Office about how those communities can be better supported? In these isolated communities, people feel they are fighting crime on their own and they need help. It is a question of police resources and perhaps the Minister would take it up.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I certainly will. As rural affairs Minister, I take the whole issue of the way in which rural communities are looked after very seriously. This is particularly important for isolated communities. The police resources allocation formula is a calculation that uses various data sources to share money between authorities. The formula predicts the relative workload or need for each category of police activity. As Rural Affairs Minister, I am keenly aware of the fact that there is a lot of work that can be done with rural communities, through working with the police and police and crime commissioners. I will certainly take this up with colleagues in the Home Office, because rural communities must be looked after.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend take this opportunity to congratulate the work of what I think was the first rural crime task force, set up by North Yorkshire Police? Will he use his good offices to ensure that rural crime is given a higher priority by the Home Office?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, it is very much the case that we need to work with the Home Office. We work with it very closely and also work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, on wildlife crime, for instance, and the National Rural Crime Network. Clearly, these rural crimes are devastating for rural communities.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, the 2018 National Rural Crime Network survey revealed that low expectations, underreporting, a perceived poor response on outcomes and worry are all contributing factors to an increased fear of crime in our rural communities. Dyfed-Powys, the largest police geographical area in England and Wales, including Brecon, Radnor and west Wales, commissioned a report on farm and rural crime from Aberystwyth University. Has the Minister read that? As a result of that survey, the police have radically improved their rural crime strategy in line with the policies in north Wales. Do Defra and the Home Office have plans to study the outcomes of these initiatives?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Yes, we will look at all surveys. I would like to refer to your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Rural Economy, which rightly highlighted that the fear and perception of crime is viewed as a problem in rural areas. In fact, 39% of people in rural areas are worried about becoming a victim of crime, compared to 19% nationally. These are issues that we need to address, and I am most grateful to the noble Lords on that committee for highlighting some of these points. The answer is that we have an honest endeavour to ensure that crime is addressed in all parts of the kingdom.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to return to the issue of hare coursing. As the Minister is aware, hares are declining throughout our countryside and hare coursing is particularly cruel. I thought the Minister was unusually—I emphasise the word unusually—unenthusiastic about pursuing this issue. Will he reassess the position and perhaps go back to the department to see what can be done to take some action on this important issue?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, perhaps it is just my manner. All I would say is that I addressed Operation Galileo. I commended the forces where these activities take place, which are about aggravated arrivals of people committing violence to property, putting farmers and their families in fear because of their aggressive behaviour, and illegal gambling. These are all gangs of people undertaking very considerable criminal activity. I use this opportunity to say that we need to work to stop them terrorising the countryside.
Homelessness: Local Authority Spending
(5 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the decrease in local authority spending since 2009 on homelessness and the number of deaths of homeless people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, every death of someone sleeping rough on our streets or homeless is one too many. We have committed to halve rough sleeping by 2022 and end it by 2027. It is for this reason that we are undertaking a significant programme of work to address this issue, backed by over £1.2 billion-worth of funding. We believe that our approach is working and we will publish a full evaluation of the rough sleeping initiative in the summer.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
I know that the Minister shares my deep concern about those sleeping rough and so on, but the loss of billions of pounds over the past decade has affected the work that local authorities have been able to do. I have the figures; we shared them the last time we discussed this. In 2010, we had 1,786 rough sleepers; by last year, there were 4,677. There is something wrong here. We also have the figures for deaths of rough sleepers on the streets. In 2014, there were 475 deaths; in 2017, there were 597. This is not progress. Can we have a pledge that when the comprehensive spending review is undertaken it will restore the benefits that are so necessary for local councils to meet this need?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord and I did indeed exchange views on this previously. The difference in the way spending is dealt with is that the ring-fence was taken off in 2009—actually under the Labour Government. It carried on like that through the coalition years, with which the noble Lord will be familiar, and still remains the case. We need also to focus on the fact that money is spent centrally, in addition to what is spent locally. The £100 million announced in August last year is beginning to have an effect. To take an example of an authority, in Brighton and Hove there were 178 rough sleepers in 2017; in 2018, there were 64. Admittedly there are nuances of difference in the way the figures are calculated, but not enough to account for that significant difference. That spending is going on, and we have a Minister dedicated to this area of activity.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will agree that one of the most important things with regard to homelessness is churn. If people fall homeless then they should be moved on. Has the Minister looked at the possibility of adopting the PECC method, which I have talked to him about? It is about prevention, emergency, coping and cure. He could then look at the money spent on the projects: is it keeping people lingering in the limbo of homelessness, preventing them becoming homeless or helping them to get out? We have to use something like the PECC method. It is free to the Minister—I invented it; there is no cost.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
It is good to hear from the noble Lord. I pay tribute to what he does on the rough sleeping advisory committee; I know that he is doing very worthwhile work. There is much to commend PECC, as he says. Yesterday, I was in Redbridge, which is adopting Project Malachi, which we are helping to fund and which is connected with work. This sort of thing is the way forward. It is not the total answer, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, but it certainly makes a big difference.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, could the Minister confirm that one of the real problems underlying the Question from my noble friend, which he replied to in terms of funding, is the massive cuts in local government funding since the coalition and the Labour Government? This has been seen in the last week with a large care home going into administration. Other care home firms have gone into administration. The main reason for that is the discounts on care home fees that local governments have to have. The care home’s financial plan therefore does not work because of the cuts in local government.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord refers to a particular area where there is certainly a problem: social care. We await the social care Green Paper, which will helpfully inform us in this particular area. He will acknowledge—as will many other noble Lords across the Chamber—that this year, for the first time in a long while, there has been an increase in local government core spending. It is welcome, and I hope it will continue as austerity comes to an end.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, what progress have the Government made in their assessment of the impact of social security cuts and restrictions on levels of homelessness and rough sleeping?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as always, the noble Baroness raises a very valid point. It is important to look at the link between different government departments and different areas of activities. This is a complex area. It is not just about spending; there are issues of addiction as well. I will write to the noble Baroness on that particular point, and copy it to the Library.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
I welcome the significant sums that the Government are investing in this area. Can the Minister indicate what progress is being made in securing hostel beds in London for men and women with drug and alcohol problems, and in securing move-on accommodation for them?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Earl is right about the particular challenges in relation to addiction. He will know that we have designated 83 areas that are receiving assistance in relation to rough sleeping, which helps with hostel spending. They include all of the London boroughs and all of our big cities. I will write to him so that we can share it more widely, and ensure that the list of money going to those local authorities is in that letter and is copied to the Library.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, today we have local government elections, so it is important to recognise that the £16 billion that has been lost in the reduction of core funding to local government since 2010 cannot be matched by the £100 million—welcome though it is—that the Government intend to spend centrally. That will not solve the problem of homelessness. What will solve it is our local authorities having sufficient funding to be able to reduce homelessness, as we did during the Labour years.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I repeat to the noble Baroness that the ring-fence came off under the last Labour Government. She is right about reductions, but it is not simply about local government spending. A lot of spending has come from religious and faith institutions, which we are helping with—and I cited the example I saw yesterday. A lot of good work is going on in authorities up and down the country, with money being spent on, for example, hubs to help with homelessness in Brighton and Hove. It is also important to make this distinction: I was speaking about rough sleeping, not homelessness. Homelessness is a much broader issue, as the noble Baroness will know, and presents very different challenges from the issue of rough sleeping. The figures we have been looking at are largely on rough sleeping, not homelessness.
Business of the House
(5 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Rooker set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Lord Lansley to two hours.
Motion agreed.
National Security Council Leak
(5 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat an Answer to an Urgent Question asked in the other place earlier today by my right honourable friend David Lidington, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office. The Answer is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, the National Security Council takes critical decisions about keeping this country safe. It was established in 2010, in part following lessons learned from the Iraq war, to ensure proper co-ordinated decision-making across the whole of government. It operates with the full breadth of expertise in the room, with Ministers from the relevant departments, advisers and officials, including the Chief of the Defence Staff, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, the heads of the intelligence services, and others.
The decisions which it makes are of critical importance to the safety of British citizens and of British interests, both in this country and around the world. For example, it is inconceivable today that the Cabinet could take a decision to commit combat troops without a full and challenging prior discussion in the NSC on the basis of full papers, including written legal advice, prepared and stress-tested by all relevant departments, and with decisions formally minuted.
I am sure the whole House will recognise how important it is that those decisions are taken in an environment in which members of the council and those who advise them feel free to speak their mind, with absolute certainty that the advice which they provide and the conclusions which they reach will remain confidential.
The leak investigation into the disclosure of information about 5G was constituted in order to ensure that the integrity of the NSC in general is upheld and that, vitally, participants in NSC meetings can continue to hold full confidence in its operation and the confidentiality of its proceedings. The Prime Minister has set out her response to evidence from the leak investigation last night and has thanked all members of the National Security Council for their full co-operation and candour during the investigation.
The unauthorised disclosure of any information from government is serious, and especially so from the National Security Council. The Prime Minister has said that she now considers that this matter has been closed, and the Cabinet Secretary does not consider it necessary to refer it to the police, but we would of course co-operate fully should the police themselves consider that an investigation were necessary. The House will recognise that it is the policy of successive Governments of different political parties not to comment on the detail of leak investigations and I will not comment on specific circumstances or personnel decisions”.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer on such a serious matter. There are two issues here. One is the potential provider of 5G, where Ministers can argue their corner in Cabinet, in the NSC or with the Prime Minister; if they still do not like the decision, they can resign and make their case from outside the Government. However, what is not acceptable is to leak from the National Security Council to further one’s argument. This is a breach of trust and, probably, of the Official Secrets Act, as well as damaging to our relationship with close allies. Can the Minister reassure the House that our Five Eyes allies will not withdraw any support as a result of the leak? Can he explain on what basis the decision was taken not to refer this to the police, given that the Prime Minister believes there is compelling evidence that the Secretary of State for Defence was responsible for the leak and that we have heard this morning that the Met Police would not investigate this without such a referral?
Lord Young of Cookham
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. On the first issue that she raised, the 5G decision will be made public in due course and will of course be subject to the usual scrutiny. On the question that she raised about the confidence of our allies, the action that the Prime Minister has taken shows how seriously she takes the leak from the NSC. We are now in touch with our allies to reassure them about the steps we have taken to remain confident in the security of NSC discussions, so that they can continue to have confidence in us.
On the second question, I said a moment ago that the Prime Minister considers the matter closed and the Cabinet Secretary has judged it not necessary to refer the matter to the police. However, Ministers and officials would co-operate should the police want to investigate. The Secretary of State for Defence was dismissed for a breach of the Ministerial Code. I believe that the Prime Minister is entitled to have in her Cabinet colleagues in whose judgment she has confidence and whom she can trust. In this case, that confidence and trust have clearly gone.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question in the other place. I also fully accept his analysis of the role and responsibilities of the National Security Council but he may be over-optimistic in thinking that this matter is closed, not least because of the continuing vehemence of Mr Williamson’s denial and the continuing public expressions of anxiety from our partners in the Five Eyes. The truth is that whoever is responsible for this leak, it is an illustration of the continuing and corrosive effect of the breakdown in Cabinet responsibility in this Government. There are those who now claim that the decision of the Prime Minister is to be regarded as a vindication of her authority. I cannot resist making the observation that it would be rather better for us all if she had exercised that authority more frequently in the last three years.
Lord Young of Cookham
I have great respect for the noble Lord, but I did not detect a question in what he said, just some comments. Personally, I deplore all leaks, NSC and Cabinet. Colleagues should be free to express their views frankly around the Cabinet table and, once they leave the Cabinet table, should keep quiet. I hope that what happened will re-establish more discipline and collective responsibility for decisions, and that people will respect the confidentiality of what happens in Cabinet.
Lord Robathan (Con)
I entirely agree with my noble friend and deprecate all leaks. This was absolutely a sacking offence, whoever did it, and it appears that it was Mr Williamson. However, does the Minister also agree that, notwithstanding the outrage of others, this is not a threat to national security? A conversation was leaked that should not have been, but there is no threat to national security. To bring the Official Secrets Act into it is a complete confection.
Lord Young of Cookham
What is serious is the forum from which the leak emanated. The contributions of individual members of the NSC were also leaked, and both of those are very serious offences.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, this was a breach of the Ministerial Code, but it also appears to have been a breach of the Official Secrets Act. Would not civil servants who have been dismissed or prosecuted for breaching the Official Secrets Act now feel aggrieved?
Lord Young of Cookham
The issue of whether the Official Secrets Act has been breached is a matter for the police and, ultimately, the courts. As I repeated in the Statement, the view of the Cabinet Secretary is that it is not necessary to refer the matter to the police. However, if the police want to investigate, we will co-operate fully.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, as both noble Lords cannot ask a question at the same time, I will ask my noble friend Lord Cormack to speak first.
Lord Cormack
I am most grateful, my Lords, and I associate myself entirely with everything that my noble friend has said about leaks and the severity of leaks from the National Security Council. I am probably the only Member of your Lordships’ House who knows Gavin Williamson very well, as my successor as Member of Parliament for South Staffordshire. Does my noble friend accept there is a human dimension to this? As we speak, his wife is in her home with the press camped around. Does the Minister accept it would be sensible, in view of the continued protestations of Mr Williamson, to reconsider referring this matter to the police? Mr Williamson has indicated he would welcome that and I think it would be to the satisfaction of all if it were done.
Lord Young of Cookham
I can also say that I know Gavin Williamson well, having served in Parliament with him for five years and having been Chief Whip in that time. This is a difficult time for Gavin Williamson, his wife and his children, and I hope the media will give them the time and space they need to come to terms with what has happened. On the further steps my noble friend suggested, as I say, the Cabinet Secretary has judged it not necessary to refer the matter to the police, and the Cabinet Secretary will of course read the comments of my noble friend.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, how is this matter to be definitively resolved? The Government say the former Defence Secretary is guilty as charged. He is the third Defence Secretary to retire under a cloud, and he completely denies that he is guilty as charged. This is not just a question of the National Security Council; the Secretary of State for Defence is in receipt and a custodian of the most sensitive and secretive areas of British foreign policy and defence, even outside the National Security Council, so it has to be resolved one way or another. I do not know whether there is any guilt attached to the former Defence Secretary, but it is in the interests of this country to clarify this by a deeper investigation. If that means a criminal investigation, so be it.
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord uses phrases such as “guilty as charged”. The Secretary of State for Defence was dismissed because he was in breach of the Ministerial Code, which says:
“Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. She is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards”.
That is why the Secretary of State for Defence lost his job.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a serious side-effect of such incidents is the constant, increasing rotation of Ministers at every level, which militates strongly against effective government?
Lord Young of Cookham
That raises a broader issue, but I hope that my noble friend is not suggesting that Ministers who have broken the code should remain in office simply to avoid the rotation to which he referred. If confidence has been lost, the Minister should go.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, 34 years ago today, I dropped some classified papers when I was rescuing a dog from a river. I was court-martialled for that and punished for it. There is a danger of double standards here, where there is no clarity as to exactly what the offence is. Are senior people in Cabinet being treated differently from all those below them in their organisations?
Lord Young of Cookham
Any Minister who accepts office knows that he or she goes when the Prime Minister so decides—I speak as someone who has left the Government four times. I am glad that the noble Lord has recovered from the incident and that his career appears to have been unimpeded.
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(5 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
That this House takes note of Her Majesty’s Government’s legal responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as detailed in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the implications of continuing climatic changes for global security and stability and for the world economy.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I say at the outset how pleased I am to notice that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, are on the speakers’ list. Global warming is the ultimate world crisis with specific national dimensions. A warning 30 years ago spoke of the “insidious danger” of,
“the prospect of irretrievable damage to the atmosphere, the oceans, to the earth itself … by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse gases … at an unprecedented rate … It is mankind … changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways”.
That was Margaret Thatcher at the United Nations in November 1989. I recommend to noble Lords a read of the entire speech.
More recently, in 2006, the specific dangers were spelled out in a government-commissioned report. It stated that all countries would be affected by climate change, but that,
“the poorest countries … will suffer earliest and most … Climate change … is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen”,
and, crucially, that,
“the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the … costs”.
That was the substantial Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, conducted by the then head of the Government Economic Service, Sir Nicholas Stern—now the noble Lord. He included a host of recommendations, including carbon pricing, technology policy and energy efficiency.
Carbon emissions are made by all countries. The top emitters are China at 30%, the United States at 15%, the EU 28 at 10%, India at 7% and Russia at 5%. Two-thirds of global emissions therefore come from the top five emitters. I fully accept that, looked at per capita, by emission intensity or in terms of cumulative emissions, the order changes, but not fundamentally. It is clear that the large emitters will need to reduce substantially to affect the global situation.
In this month’s journal of the Institution of Engineering and Technology—I declare more than 50 years’ membership—there is a worrying article asking:
“Is China returning to coal-fired power?”
It is based on a recent study by Global Energy Monitor, Boom and Bust 2019, which indicated that, while the number of coal-fired plants under development worldwide dropped steeply for the third year in a row, and coal plant retirements continue at a record pace, there is a glaring exception in China. It is claimed that observation by satellite shows that developers have quietly restarted construction on dozens of suspended projects. The China coal capacity cap has been reset at 1,300 gigawatts. This would allow an extra 290 gigawatts of new capacity—more than the entire coal fleet of the USA at present. The report warns that global climate goals cannot be met without a full halt to new coal plants and rapid retirement of existing operating plants.
The Sierra Club, a US environmental organisation with over 3 million members, says that the US is on course to phase out coal by 2030 and transit to a clean energy economy. However, more than half the world’s new oil and gas pipelines are under construction in North America, the bulk in the United States. Global Energy Monitor points out that these pipelines are locking in huge emissions for 40 to 50 years, when the scientists say that we have to move in 10 years. It is a worrying story from two large emitters. The UK started all this, of course, with the Industrial Revolution. The UK is obviously a low emitter on the world scale, but we are part of the third largest and we will remain part of the European Union integrated electricity market. We have responsibilities from a historical perspective as well as to the next generation.
How are we doing? The science is world class, but I am not so sure about the performance. The scorecard against the actions recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Stern, does not look great. The special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was a wake-up call. The problem is it might be the final call. We are only 11 years away from 2030, which is a tipping point. The main consensus is that if the temperature rise is not limited to 1.5 degrees centigrade by 2030 there will be long-lasting, and in some cases irreversible, changes to the planet’s ecosystems. Rapid and far-reaching changes are required for all society, with faster development and application of new technology, as recommended in the Stern report, followed up by today’s publication of the report by the climate change committee, I am pleased to see.
We cannot rest on the fact that we were the first nation with a Climate Change Act with legally binding targets. We and the world have continued population growth. We have doubts about new nuclear build for clean energy, which must carry the baseload in the future, even if we maintain gas with carbon capture and storage. We have abandoned wind-generated power on land. Energy efficiency via insulation is less than what it was. We have given planning permission for a new coal mine. I will repeat that: we have given planning permission for a new coal mine. It should be stopped. Listed building consents continue to stop the use of certain clean energy techniques. We continue with the third runway and fracking, on both of which I have changed my mind.
I want to be positive, but before that it is worth mentioning that the effects of careless land use have now led the United Nations to estimate we have only 60 harvests left before the world’s soils are too barren to feed the planet. Michael Gove has said that we are 30 to 40 years away from,
“the fundamental eradication of soil fertility”.
We need to take urgent heed of the science before it is too late. Young people are taking the science seriously. It is the facts they want—not fiction from vested interests. Earlier this year I spoke at a sixth-form college lunchtime meeting and when the students arrived they apologised to the lecturer for bunking off on strike in the morning as it was a Friday. They had been out in Hereford city centre campaigning on climate change. They are concerned. In the recess, my 11 year-old granddaughter asked us to be quiet while she watched and took notes from David Attenborough’s TV lecture on the facts of climate change for her school project. She is worried. An unnamed 10 year-old was quoted in the Times last week as asking the question:
“If the pollution goes on like now, how long have we got left”?
A few days ago I attended the meeting in Portcullis House to listen to Greta Thunberg. As I listened to this remarkable young woman I became more and more uneasy. I remembered that I moved the Second Reading of the then Climate Change Bill. Her reference to the UK’s “very creative carbon accounting” was powerful, and it does not really matter what your view of the statistics is, or who says what; the fact is that our figures are affected to a great extent by the closure of the old coal-fired stations, as ordered by the EU, and emissions from aviation and shipping are excluded, as are the emissions from our imports. Of course there has been progress, but we are unable to claim really serious changes in many of the issues, including carbon pricing. Where are the waves of new technology for clean energy and very substantial energy efficiency programmes?
The Climate Change Act, which started life in your Lordships’ House in 2007, was world leading then, but it now looks a bit modest. I might add that 2007 was the year I bought my first diesel car, on government advice. The Act allows for shipping and aviation to be included in the targets, so there is flexibility. After it has been more than 10 years on the statute book, these should be included.
As I said, I want to be positive. It is not too late. Governments, nations and individuals can all make changes. New technology is the key, and this has to include action on removal of the greenhouse gases that are already there, as set out in the joint report from the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, for example. Policies should include such things as afforestation of 5% of UK land, restoring wetlands and ensuring that building practices include using wood and cement with carbonated waste. I understand, though I have not seen all the details, that this is covered in the climate change committee’s report, which we will hear more about. The solutions should be mainly market driven rather than flat subsidies, because we need to create a new kind of economy, which has to be sustainable. The new economy has to be regulated, of course; therefore, government must play a role. Investment will not flow into new products and new ways of working unless there is confidence in a plan.
Here I come to my final point. Climate change does not fit our political system nor the electoral cycle. As Minister Claire Perry said last week in the Commons, there has been cross-party support and consensus building. In my view, this needs urgent strengthening. We need to fit the political system to meet the challenge up to 2030 at least. The status quo is simply not tenable. It needs national leadership from a Prime Minister to change the machinery of government to create a Cabinet committee, to include the three opposition parties, business, finance, agriculture, and construction as a way of locking in actions across the electoral cycle and creating confidence for investment in new products and techniques which are going affect every home in the land. Of course it needs high-level commitment from opposition leaders as well. I do not think it is any longer acceptable to hide behind the current excuse avenue of one Parliament not binding another. We need to make some changes.
Such a process as I have broadly outlined will not work on its own. Therefore, I see a role for a commission of climate action oversight, consisting of, say, seven Members of this House with powers to report to Parliament, the relevant political parties and the public on failures to act by such a Cabinet committee as I have set out, and its members, in the interests of achieving targets and working across the electoral cycle in the public interest. It is only by such changes, which I fully accept are wholly radical, that we can get a message to the public that something is different about this—that it is not the same as the other political issues we have dealt with. I might add that I propose that Cross-Benchers should be in the majority on such a commission, because that would give it greater force when dealing with the other place.
The Government and the elected House have to be in the lead and give a lead, but too often, and we can cite lots of examples, there is inertia for political and other reasons. I think that an oversight commission from this House, with the necessary powers, could provide the clout. I do not intend to take any further time, I am very grateful to all those who are going to contribute and I beg to move.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. He put his finger on the pulse by saying that he expects that we will all make similar speeches, but it is the action that must take place that will be the judge of what we say today. For three years, before I stepped down, I stood here as the Lib Dem spokesperson for energy and climate change, and I said over and over again that what shocked me most when I came into post was the utter lack of urgency in the Government’s approach to action on climate change. I said over and over that we needed to go further and faster, and I often said that the Government appeared to think that signing the Paris Agreement was an end in itself rather than a beginning.
This Government, without the strong leadership on this agenda that we had previously, during both the Labour Government, with the Climate Change Act, and the coalition, with Ed Davey and Chris Huhne as Liberal Democrat Secretaries of State and the huge advances we made under their stewardship, have pulled the rug from under that agenda. By the end of the coalition, we had made Britain the fastest-growing green economy in Europe. The amount of electricity from renewables had more than trebled. We had set up the Green Investment Bank, which up to the change in government had helped to fund £11 billion-worth of green infrastructure projects. In 2015 we had a record-breaking year, with millions of pounds poured into solar and wind energy and more homes powered by nature than ever before.
None of those things would have happened with a Conservative-only Government. We knew that at the time, but in the first two years of a Conservative-only Government we had a shocking list of anti-green measures. I shall not repeat the whole litany, your Lordships will be relieved to hear, but there was the precipitous cutting of subsidies for solar and wind, banning onshore wind, causing thousands of job losses in solar, scrapping the original £1 billion carbon capture and storage project, cutting the renewable heat incentive, pushing ahead with fracking, abandoning the zero-carbon homes policy—which was crazy—and on and on.
I am sure that when the Minister answers this debate, he will list what the Government have done, point to the industrial strategy and claim that they are totally committed but, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, actions will speak much louder than words. We have real enemies out there: climate change deniers and the massive vested interests of giant oil companies. We have a climate change denier in the White House. Make no mistake, other countries will use Trump as an excuse not to act themselves. The wonderful, hard-won Paris Agreement, which gave us so much hope when it presented a united global ambition to tackle climate change is now under threat, and the global consensus is in danger of unravelling.
The United Kingdom should be leading the charge to net-zero carbon. Thankfully, along came Extinction Rebellion and we have a moment of opportunity, but it really should not be necessary to bring London to a halt. We have made it clear what needs doing: we need action. I commissioned work to find a road map for what needed to be done to get us to net-zero carbon by 2050, because it is clear that the current 80% target, even if we were to meet it, which looks unlikely, would not deliver the Paris Agreement. Culmer Raphael and Iken Associates, the consultants I commissioned, produced a report that I know the Minister has read; he has quoted its title, A Vision for Britain: Clean, Green and Carbon Free, and content back to me from the Dispatch Box. A huge number of experts in the field were consulted and gave their time and effort.
Even if we manage to do everything in that report, we get to 93% by 2050. Yes, we can make it to zero carbon with that extra 7% reached by technological advancement, but we now need even more radical action. What would it take? I would say close your eyes, my Lords, but that is always a bit dangerous here. Just imagine, as the ordinary citizen leaves his or her home in the morning, the commute to work has changed radically. In large urban centres, there are car pools of electric cars that anyone can rent, and rental, club and car-share ownership schemes have proliferated. People still occasionally own cars, but they use them far less and all cars are electric, with charging facilities available from most lampposts. Autonomous cars pick up and drop off from house to office and vice versa. Buses, tubes and trains are no longer the cattle trucks of yesteryear as people time-share slots to share familial roles, with many couples and non-couples sharing the working day. The third runway at Heathrow Airport never happened. A national anti-obesity campaign got everyone to get off their bus or Tube one stop early and walk, and separated cycle lanes are now in place on almost all major routes.
Houses are carbon-neutral. Gas-fired central heating and cooking now comes from green gas, hydrogen or green electricity. Renewable energy is the standard form of energy generation: solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and hydro dominate the market and prices have fallen dramatically over the past two decades and six tidal lagoons are now in operation. Hinkley Point was built but with vast public subsidy and coming in at three times the original price. It was, however, to be the last of its kind because before its construction was completed, nuclear was completely overtaken by massive changes in the energy market. Urgent and huge uplift in the provision of interconnectors took place in 2019. Fracking turned out to be a disastrous waste of time; the big companies abandoned their efforts as the geology proved too complicated and costly, not to mention the years tied up in local objections. People finally gained local control of the supply and delivery of their energy, with every household having its own battery storage and charging facility.
It has been years since carbon was allowed to get into the atmosphere as the technology of the 2020s saw capture and storage reach maturity. The exponential growth in renewables created an economic boom of huge proportions, and we are well on course to deliver the maximum rise of 1.5% in temperature. Industry cleaned up its act. We financed the transition in agriculture and land-use change, and we have a vibrant and successful circular economy. The financial institutions of our country changed the investment rules and regulations so that benefits to the planet and mankind were equally regarded alongside fiduciary duty. Exponential perpetual growth was frowned on as it was recognised that the world’s resources are finite. People self-regulated their eating of meat and accepted their ration of flying hours per year until the day that aviation became renewable. That is what it will take.
I like to think that the publication of our report helped to provoke Claire Perry into asking the Committee on Climate Change to look at zero carbon by 2050. This morning, the CCC launched its wonderful and extensive report on net zero. Britain’s future prosperity depends on developing an innovative, entrepreneurial, internationally open and environmentally sustainable economy where the benefits are shared fairly across the country and with future generations. This is indeed a climate emergency.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Climate Change Committee. I have come directly from the launch of the net zero report, asked for by the Government—the first Government in the world to ask for the mechanisms to meet what we agreed to in the Paris Agreement. I feel passionately that all-party agreement is the most important part of our system. I am also concerned lest all-party agreement becomes an excuse for a degree of unwillingness to move fast enough; a complacency sometimes comes from all-party agreement.
I have constantly objected to people who try to make party politics out of this, which is why I objected to my noble friend’s Daily Telegraph article talking about climate change and the Conservative Party, and why I think that last speech did not contribute to the debate at all. I do not care who has done it; I care about what is being done and what will be done. That is why the Climate Change Committee answered the Government’s request today. They now have to answer the facts, which are that we can reach net zero, not merely in carbon but in greenhouse gases, and that we can do so by 2050. We have made that clear and the mechanism is there. If the Government do not accept that, they will be saying that they accept neither the science nor, indeed, the best mechanism for doing so that has ever been produced. This is 600 pages of ground-breaking work that has already been recognised as a total game-changer—as important as the Stern report, if not more so—because it sets us all a real challenge.
But it means action now; it does not mean hanging about. There is a series of things that we have to do. I am pleased about the protesters, students and so on because they are saying to us, “You have a responsibility not to destroy our future”. I declare another interest, in the form of three grandchildren and two more on the way. I want their future to be guaranteed and it is we who can do that. It means that we must stop building crap houses which do not provide their owners with proper energy efficiency. It means having the kind of heating that does not need fossil fuels. It means doing something about the appalling condition of our soil. The fertility of our soil must be recovered because we need it not only for farming, but even more in order to sequestrate the carbon that itself is part of the soil fertility circle.
We need to bring aviation and shipping into the figures—and indeed, that is what we have insisted upon. There can be no sensible policy if we do not cover all those things. What we do must be market driven because otherwise there will not be strength enough to achieve what we need. But the market itself has to be driven by the terms under which it operates. The Government have to make sure that the occupancy advantages do not stop the change we need. That is a role of government. Regulation is not about the nanny state; it is about ensuring that the needs of the next generation are taken fully into account now, when we can make the necessary changes, which we have adumbrated in detail in this report.
Curiously, the new generation is threatened in a way that is utterly different from the threat we faced when I was growing up. Then, we were threatened by nuclear war, but it did not happen. Climate change will happen: it does happen. It is not a threat in the sense of being possible; it is happening now and unless we intervene, it will overwhelm us.
As I go around the country, I am fascinated to note that people no longer ask whether climate change is happening. The deniers have lost the battle because the science is so fundamentally clear. The new battle is not to make people believe in climate change; it is to take the steps that are necessary. We can take them and we can do so within the financial envelope Parliament set aside when our aim was 60%, let alone 80%. We can do it within the costs that we have allowed for today because government action has brought down the price of what we need to do, and further government action will continue to do that.
I finish by saying to my noble friend that we do not want fine words. We do not want comments about what we did, or why the Liberals or the Labour Party did not do what they could have done. What we want is a very direct statement. You asked for this report. You have got it. You put it into action.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rooker for introducing this debate so passionately, and we have heard an even more passionate speech from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, whose work on the Committee on Climate Change is absolutely central to us getting this right. Some 11 years ago, I served on the Joint Committee on the Climate Change Bill, which brought in the very first legally binding targets. Some 20 years ago, I was working with my noble friend Lord Prescott in his department when he went off to Tokyo and was so instrumental in delivering the Kyoto agreements. I am glad he will speak later today.
Some of those earlier promises have not been fulfilled, either nationally or globally. Globally, we are not yet on course to achieve anything like the 1.5 degrees constraint of growth; it will be significantly worse than that, even if we adopt some of the measures that will be advocated today. Nationally, we have had a number of successes, but some of those have been by default. We have also seen the abandonment of policies that were delivering many of those successes, such as the premature ending of subsidies to the renewable sector, the abandoning of some R&D in tidal power and carbon capture and storage, the end of an effective programme of energy efficiency through the insulating of existing homes, and a pulling back on the regulations for new builds in this country.
We have had some success, but we need to be a little cautious about this. My noble friend Lord Rooker referred to Greta Thunberg’s assertion. Some people derided it, but she is essentially right that some of our claimed progress is a bit dubious. In particular, we have essentially exported the carbon emissions from our manufacturing industry to the Far East. Part of China’s escalation is because Britain and the rest of the West have moved their dirtier industries to the Far East. Therefore, an assessment of demand—including demand for imports—needs to be taken into account when we congratulate ourselves on our achievements in this area.
The Government have been clear that we need to do something about this, but the reality is that it has gone down the list of priorities. Brexit has dominated our lives. Other things impinge—the housing and social care crises and so forth—but this is the central issue that any Government need to tackle. Yesterday, at last, following Extinction Rebellion, David Attenborough and indeed the report from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, the House of Commons declared this an emergency. It was pretty obviously an emergency 20 years ago. We now need to treat it as such and to upgrade the actions on climate change within our government machine, this House, Parliament and the national consciousness. It has been downgraded and it needs to be upgraded again.
I have not had the opportunity to read the climate change committee’s report yet—it is a bit long; I will have a go at it tonight—but I hope it gives us a blueprint as we go forward, and I hope the Government take notice of it. There are some big decisions on the immediate agenda, such as the decarbonisation of domestic heat and of our transport system; we have made some progress, but still a very small proportion of our transport system is decarbonised. We need to look at developing hydrogen for both those purposes, as well as at things that themselves have some environmental impact as they rely on current battery technology.
We also need effective government machinery. We need proper regulations and, above all, the effective enforcement of and compliance with those regulations. For all the good words from Michael Gove and others, which I support, when we come to actually proposing the future principles and governance of environmental policy, climate change is not centre stage and the proposed Bill, which is yet to reach this House, is completely insufficient to ensure that the whole public sector—let alone the whole economy—is prioritising the fight on climate change.
I will use my last two minutes to talk about two things that have been mentioned but are normally prioritised down. We talk about emissions into the air, but I want to talk about soil and water. The combination of poor water management, increasing heat, less water being available and the insatiable demand of individuals and businesses for water in our country means we have to take much more drastic measures to control our use of water, such as leakage controls, water efficiency measures and control of the energy content of water infrastructure. We need to retrofit our houses and businesses with energy efficiency appliances, and we need better water catchment management in the first place. That needs to be delivered with the industry and with effective government intervention.
On soil, three or four years ago, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who is not in his place, asserted that we had only 50 harvests left in northern Europe. That is the most frightening thing I have heard. It was the first time I had heard it, and I followed it up and read the literature behind it. It is truly terrifying. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, described, if we do not do anything about it, all our grandchildren will face within their lifetime a situation in northern Europe, and probably the globe, where the soil does not deliver the food, the biodiversity and the environment needed for human life to continue. It is a frightening thought that, 50 or 60 years from now, we will no longer produce enough food from our soil because of climate change, to a large extent, and bad agricultural practice and land use over the years.
Let us put those two issues back into the equation. Let us ensure that the Government take the situation more seriously. It is an escalating emergency, and I hope that we act on the report of the noble Lord, Lord Deben.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury
My Lords, the context of this debate has changed radically over the past few months. Whatever you think of the tactics of Extinction Rebellion, what has been created by its disruption has put the environment on the agenda in a new way and with greater urgency. The debate in the other place yesterday on a climate emergency was Parliament catching up with more than 40 councils in the UK that have decided to act in response to this climate emergency, including Wiltshire declaring that it will be carbon neutral by 2030. Two-thirds of Britons are now said to agree that the planet is in a climate emergency.
I welcome the publication of the climate change committee’s report. This is a creative opportunity and not only a moment of anxiety. We are in an industrial revolution. I was taken by Greta Thunberg’s comment:
“Avoiding climate breakdown will require cathedral thinking. We must lay the foundation while we may not know exactly how to build the ceiling”.
The Committee on Climate Change has set out the direction and detail of what it will do to respond to that challenge.
Net zero is possible and affordable. The cost of climate inaction will be more than that of achieving net zero. The business opportunities are considerable and we need to get on with it. This is urgent in the short term. The transition to net zero needs to be socially just and the costs fairly distributed. We should not use international offsets. The UK needs to continue to make firm commitments to developing countries to provide financial, technological and capacity-building support for their low-carbon development and resilience building. While 2050 is ambitious, 2045 could well be possible. A virtuous circle to spur greater action can be created by good policy.
In the faith communities of the United Kingdom there is a strong recognition of the need to change lifestyles and behaviours. We welcome the benefits that will follow, including cleaner air and warmer homes. We have already begun to embrace these changes, with thousands of places of worship powered by renewable energy and families committing to live simply and sustainably.
We need the greatest minds, hearts and souls committed to this task, with individuals, communities, businesses and government working together. I share the criticisms of others about some of the things the Government have or have not done, but the Government deserve to be encouraged for what they are doing in the right direction. The UK is giving significant leadership and has done so with a degree of cross-party consensus. That is important and I strongly support the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about the need to build on and strengthen that if we are to face the greater urgency of the current challenge. There is so much more to be done.
Could we agree a legally binding target of net zero emissions by 2045? Such a target would require a cross-party approach. In the context of the climate emergency, some of the Government’s decisions are hard to comprehend. We need a much more coherent approach to energy. The continued subsidy of fossil fuels is now absurd and needs to end. The stimulus of renewable energy and greater efficiency is a priority. The inability to tax aviation fuel or to find a way to limit air travel is just plain stupid.
I recently asked the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, a Question about Woodhouse Colliery in Cumbria. He replied that the Government continue to be committed to the Paris agreement and referred to a request for advice from the Committee on Climate Change, which was published today. He went on:
“Cumbria County Council took the decision to grant planning permission”,
and that it was its,
“responsibility to consider this application in its role as minerals planning authority, and the Council would have considered all relevant material considerations, including environmental impacts”.
That is odd when local decisions about fracking can be called in by the Government and resolved centrally. We need joined-up thinking and action, and we need policy formation that provides a framework in which individuals make good choices.
On the eve of the Extinction Rebellion protest, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Williams of Oystermouth, said that it is as if we have forgotten who we are and we need to rediscover our relationship with one another, God and the creation. To live in a revolution is hugely demanding. It will need the commitment of parliamentarians to engage strongly with our communities and establish creative policy frameworks that get the best out of people, not just because of anxiety but for the love of this wonderful creation. In this, the faith communities are a resource for prayer, thought and action.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Windsor Energy Group and a consultant to Mitsubishi Electric. We always say that these debates are timely, but this debate really is timely, not just because of the recent protests or the mighty new plan presented so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Deben a few moments ago, but because we are raising overdue questions about the whole of UK energy policy and its present trend and the global climate struggle, which we and the whole world community are, frankly, now busy losing.
In my short time, I shall make three points. First, of course carbon reduction is an essential priority. I certainly do not question that. It is necessary, but some compassion is also needed. It is also a priority to provide affordable clean energy for the millions across the world who do not have it and for the millions in the developed world who have it but face extreme difficulties, including in many parts of our United Kingdom. It is utterly shaming that we are a nation of fuel banks—of agonising choices for some families between eating and heating and of ineffectual price caps. There is a real choice here on pace and balance to prevent serious social harm and economic damage. It is callous to ignore that or to pretend otherwise, and in practical terms it is unwise and self-defeating. We have only to see what happened with the gilets jaunes in France a few weeks ago to get a good idea of what happens if we get the balance wrong.
Secondly, we face a massive growth in electricity demand worldwide, not least from billions of people without any power at all. The future is electric. However successful we are with cheap renewables plus storage technology, which we must of course press ahead with, and however clever we are with conservation, electric cars, distributed energy resources, carbon capture and storage or any of the other very desirable technological improvements, the only way to meet this inevitable and huge demand will be through low-carbon nuclear power. Everyone knows that—it has been recognised throughout the world. France recognises it. It has now decided to delay the closure of its highly successful low-carbon nuclear electricity system to achieve zero emissions by 2050, in line with the aspirations of my noble friend Lord Deben. It cannot be done without keeping open part of its vast nuclear power low-carbon system. Germany is in a complete muddle. Having abandoned nuclear power, it is now seeing a higher level of coal-burning. CO2 is rising, not falling, and it has ended up 50% dependent on Russian gas, which is highly dangerous.
In the United Kingdom, we are trying to expand clean nuclear power but it is not going well. Hinkley Point C is being built with colossal burdens on consumers for years ahead. Wylfa is on hold, with Hitachi suspending operations. The Moorside plan has been completely halted by Toshiba abandoning it. The Chinese are taking over. They are going to build their own Hinkley nuclear plant at Bradwell and possibly at Sizewell C. We, and the world, cannot achieve even the present targets without substantially increased nuclear power. All the mess that we have got into with the British system needs a thorough review, because without nuclear power we will not deliver the green targets or keep within the legal bounds that we have set ourselves.
Thirdly, however well we do here, our climate fate will be decided in Asia and the US, and in China and India in particular. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and others have recognised that. In 2018, emissions grew by 4.7% in China and 6.3% in India. In the US, by far the biggest per capita emitter of all, they grew last year by 2.5%, having fallen in earlier years because of the shift from coal to shale gas.
Throughout all that time, the UK has undoubtedly done comparatively quite well. We have reduced emissions but the trouble is that not only is there a heavy cost for the poor consumer but we account for only 1% of world emissions. The figure was much higher during the era of the Industrial Revolution but now it is 1%. Therefore, our influence on climate change worldwide will be only by example. In fact, even if we closed down the whole of the United Kingdom, the direct effect in the battle against climate change throughout the world would be marginal, as 99% of CO2 is pumped out elsewhere. Unfortunately, no virtuous little carbon-free zone would be maintained above us—it is not like that. We are caught up in the global system. Because of vast Asian demand as living standards rise, hydrocarbons will still be 74% of energy source by 2040, and 37% of energy still comes from coal, with many new coal-powered stations still being built, as earlier speakers have reminded us.
The lessons of this are clear: let there be protest and let the young and the old be motivated—that is fine—but let this protest be focused on real issues, without fantasy, and ideally without hitting and hurting hard-working people, the vulnerable or the weak, as I fear some measures have already done. Resources should be provided on a Marshall plan scale to put behind low-carbon technologies that will meet Asia’s colossal thirst for power and electricity, including clean coal technologies and particularly cheaper nuclear power. Smaller, cleaner and safer reactors may well be the solution, instead of the expensive behemoths that we keep building here, without great success.
Without this new focus, there is not the slightest hope of even meeting the inadequate Paris targets. Whatever we do here, legal or not legal, protest or no protest, that is the case and those are the facts. I hope that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will play its part—dare I say possibly a stronger part than in the past?—in bringing honesty and realism to the debate and in focusing on the real needs before it is too late. We do indeed need to think again urgently, sensitively and differently on all these issues.
Lord Prescott (Lab)
My Lords, I offer my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Rooker on securing this debate and on the excellent and, as usual, inquiring speech that accompanied it—and on the controversy. There is always controversy over climate change; it was certainly notable in the negotiations of the Kyoto agreement.
There was great emphasis by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in another excellent speech, on partnership. One of the first things I did when I was appointed the European negotiator for Kyoto was to invite the noble Lord, Lord Deben, to join our delegation. That was the first example of the last Secretary of State joining the new one in partnership to deliver what was essential for climate change. His speech today shows us the excellent work that has been done by his committee, which has laid down the roadwork for the next stage of climate change and the move to a low carbon economy.
That was controversial at Kyoto, but then it was all about the science. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is not here today—he must have accepted that the science has changed. But at the end of the day there is no longer an argument about the science. The evidence is clear to us and the public have accepted it. The demonstrations now reflect much more than that—they reflect the anger that we are not implementing what the public thought we should be doing and what we set out that we would do.
I think they have been unfair in their criticism. Greta Thunberg was not right to say that things were not done. A global problem requires a global solution: it requires a global agreement, which was done at Kyoto; it requires a national one, which was agreed at Paris; and, as I will say in my speech, we need a regional agreement also, which I tried to implement at the COP in Poland.
To that extent, we have a framework. It is not right to say that nothing was achieved; something was certainly achieved internationally. Britain led the way, and continues to do so, through setting up a statutory committee to judge the Government on the policies they have said they would implement to cut carbon. That is a major change—it did not happen in any other country—and was at the first stage, so I am delighted about that. However, Greta was right that we are not moving urgently enough or with enough of the detail we get in the policies from the climate change committee. We need the political judgments to get on with it and implement the policies.
It is quite clear from that excellent report that controversy will continue—it is about targets, timetables and policies. I do not look forward to debates over the next 20 years about whether we have the targets, which direction we are going in, what needs to be done or whether we got 10% or 15%. For God’s sake, can we move on from that argument? This is an emergency. We have to do what we promised—probably even more—but that will be a big problem when we start talking about transport and housing. It is not just about money; it is an essential part of the requirement to get down to a low carbon level. As we all say, rich countries that poison the world with high levels of carbon need to produce low carbon economies. That means fundamental changes.
There are things we can do beyond just having arguments for 13 years—we will still have them, they will not go away, but we need something that provides more proof than people’s judgments. I propose my constituency of the Humber area. The Humber estuary is now moving towards being one of our great rivers of energy. Why? Because the new industrial revolution—that is what it is—is based on wind and water, as the last one went through all its stages based on coal and iron. Now it is about renewable energy—that means you need to have the low costs that come with renewable energy and an estuary to get out. That is because the real low costs come from a continental shelf out at sea. If we want to develop new energy sources, we have to have an estuary to go on. They provide us with a unique way of beginning to develop a low carbon economy.
I say to the Government that we must all get together to try to plan. We should not just rely on the climate change committee; it can show us the way forward, but why do we not produce a living lab? Why do we not look at an area that will implement that programme? The Government talk about an industrial strategy and they have talked about places of growth. Let an estuary become a place of growth. Why? Because it is unique, not only because it is an area which has the wind power.
Yesterday, I addressed a conference of 350 people in Hull where they are today planning the next stage of the growth of renewable energy. Any new industrial revolution is bound to be based on renewable energy. That requires access to the sea. The Americans were at this conference, because they now realise that renewable energy brings with it the technology for the development of the new carbon economy. This is a new industrial revolution. That is what we have to get over to people.
As I explained at this conference, the Humber offers a good opportunity for estuarial development. I am arguing this within the international framework at present. The Government have an industrial strategy—having caught up on all the debates at the moment about Brexit—which says that there should be places of growth. Let the Humber become a place of growth. We now have the new source of energy, the land for the new technologies and the supply industry that come from it and the traditional maritime infrastructure—ports and fishing—which now service that industry. We have the science. We have a river base that offers water power. You need an estuary to get out to the seabeds to get the low energy. The Humber has all of that. We even have holes in the ground for carbon capture. The North Sea industry gas was taken out and pipes were taken to the town. Let us take the carbon capture and dump it back in the North Sea, in the holes that are empty. That is another asset belonging to an estuary like the Humber.
There are many things we can do; some we still need to identify. I will finish on this point. We have to recognise that an industrial revolution is taking place. It requires certain location factors, which are all found in the Humber. I ask the Government to consider the idea of the Humber as a place of growth. We could call it the living lab, so that when arguments with the climate change committee are going on, we have some way of seeing whether those policies are working in this new, low carbon industry. It is a practical test against a lot of the hot air about targets and timetables. We need to be more practical. This would be the first step towards an emergency step to deal with the carbon and climate change problems we have at the moment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on securing this debate. I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular my work with the Water Industry Commission for Scotland, which is the water regulator for Scotland. I also co-chair the All-Party Group on Water.
In setting the scene for this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, called on the Government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and respond to the challenge of climate change. My noble friend Lord Deben referred to the role of the Paris Agreement and how to achieve what was agreed there through today’s report from the Committee on Climate Change. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is absolutely right to press for greater international commitments to match what has been achieved by the UK and Europe. I am pleased that he singled out the fact that India and China are the enemies of climate change prevention and that there are climate change deniers in the US.
Successive UK Governments have been pioneers in this regard. The UK was the first country to set a science-led, long-term and legally binding greenhouse gas emission target. We have to accept that science changes; the science has already moved on. Every household is playing its part, with the emphasis on renewables and clean energy technologies. Undoubtedly, this has led to higher fuel energy bills.
In 2018, renewables contributed 37% of the UK’s electricity supply and the UK has already reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% since 2010. The UK is also one of the largest international donors of overseas development assistance and we are thereby contributing to helping developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change. However, echoing the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, I regret the Government’s focus on and obsession with fracking. There can be no surer way to increase our greenhouse gas emissions. I hope we will turn the corner and put an end to future prospects for fracking.
The conclusions of the climate change committee today are welcome. I congratulate it and its chair, my noble friend Lord Deben, on setting out the framework going forward. I have one question for my noble friend: why is it always those living in the south of England, in largely arable areas, who tell us to produce less meat and turn our heating down? Having represented upland farmers for 18 years in the other place, I accept that 65% of our land is best suited to grazing animals. I welcome the fact that farmers are committed to reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions across England and Wales by 2040. There are always smarter and more environmentally sustainable ways to farm and farmers are rising to that challenge.
Any proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will impact on British business, British consumers and British competitiveness. That is why I believe any action should be based on a multilateral, international approach—on initiatives such as that put forward on the eve of the forthcoming Future of Europe summit, to be held on 9 May, in a letter from 50 CEOs of businesses based across the European Union, calling for the adoption of the European Commission’s vision, A Clean Planet for All. The letter from these top European businesses calls on Heads of State and Government to endorse an EU strategy for climate neutrality by 2050 at the latest. I believe we would do best to support that, whether we remain in the European Union or following Brexit. We should follow their lead.
Others have spoken of the great challenge of replacing petrol and diesel vehicles with electric ones, and the need to make air and sea transport more environmentally friendly. Like the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, I am fully signed up to what we have achieved in North Yorkshire by planting more trees. I direct the Minister to the Slowing the Flow at Pickering pilot project, where, by planting trees, making dams and creating peat bogs that take some 200 years to build, we have made a flood defence scheme at the same time. There is no better way to capture and store carbon than planting these trees.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that we must push for better catchment management and ensure that any new houses are built in appropriate places, not on functional flood plains, with proper infrastructure for resilience—in particular, a sustainable water supply with freshwater in and wastewater out.
I end with two questions to the Minister. In encouraging electric-powered vehicles, from which sources of energy will this electricity be supplied? If we are all agreed, which has been the main thrust of the debate so far—politicians, industry, farmers and even schoolchildren—will the Government ensure that we deliver on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and address the challenge of climate change, and that we do so by seeking international action?
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I echo the words of others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for securing this debate on what has turned out to be a very special day. I also declare my interest as vice-chair of the Committee on Climate Change and chair of its adaptation committee.
I want to talk about the lesser-known part of the Climate Change Act that covers climate change risk, and the actions that government must take to address it to keep the people of the UK safe in the face of a changing climate. However well we do on mitigation by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and even if we could cut them to zero by 2025, as Extinction Rebellion would like, or to the much more realistic target that the CCC has recommended today of 2050, we have to recognise that the climate will go on changing because of the lag in the climate system.
It will continue to get hotter. The threats of droughts and fires will continue to increase. Extreme weather events, such as the short periods of very intense rainfall that cause flooding, will continue to become more frequent. Sea levels will continue to rise, contributing more damage to coastal areas. Adaptation, ensuring that people, but also animals and plants, can continue to live safe and healthy lives in the face of these changes, will remain a critical area for policy, investment and action.
Section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008 requires the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament every five years containing an assessment of the risks to the UK of the current and predicted impact of climate change, and to take into account the advice of the CCC, which is the climate change risk assessment—the CCRA. The current CCRA—our second—was laid before Parliament in 2017.
Under Section 58 of the Act, the Secretary of State has a duty to lay programmes before Parliament, setting out the objectives of Her Majesty’s Government in the UK in relation to the adaptation to climate change; the Government’s proposals and policies for meeting these objectives; and the timescales for introducing these proposals and policies, addressing the risks identified in the most recent climate change risk assessment. This is called the national adaptation programme. Every other year we on the CCC review the progress on delivering the NAP. Our current NAP was laid before Parliament last year, and we will review it formally later this year.
The CCC’s advice to the Government on climate change risks, based on an extensive evidence report, identified 56 key risks and opportunities for the UK which should be addressed in the next five years, 38 of which were classified as “more urgent”— that is, where more action or more research was needed in the next five years. In our first scan of the 2018 NAP, the CCC has already pointed out that half of the 56 key risks are not covered by formal NAP actions, and that includes 16 of the risks identified as “more urgent”. I am not going to list these—our formal report in the summer will cover them in detail—but I want to highlight those particularly pertinent to this debate: the international aspects and the international risks, which include global stability and the global economy.
As we have heard, climate change will impact populations, economies and livelihoods around the world. An increase in extreme weather impacts can be expected to cause widespread loss of life and severe humanitarian crises. Patterns of agricultural production will be disrupted and, over time, will have to change. We will import impacts to the UK through the price and safety of food and other commodities, changes to the patterns of trade, disrupted supply chains and risks to overseas investments. An increased frequency of weather extremes will disproportionately affect low-income populations, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has reminded us, and countries such as the UK will increasingly be called upon to provide more humanitarian assistance. Efforts to build state stability and long-term resilience could be undermined. Further research is urgently needed to understand whether our current approaches to aid and development are contributing effectively to the long-term resilience and stability needed. We need to be aware of the danger that the need for humanitarian assistance, in response to an increasing number of extreme weather events, could shift international aid away from long-term development.
Climate refugees and climate-driven migration are likely to become increasingly problematic, with potential impacts on extremist politics in developed nations. Overall, the research evidence indicates that the key international risks to the UK all fell into the “more urgent” categories, with more action needed on weather-related shocks to global food production and trade, risks from climate-related human displacement—refugees—and more research needed on imported food safety risks, long-term changes in global food production, risks to the UK from international violent conflict, and risks to international law and governance.
None of these has any formal actions in the NAP. While the three relating to food production are mentioned in passing, the three relating to migration, conflict and the breakdown of international law and governance are not mentioned anywhere in the 2018 NAP. The first national adaptation programme, in 2013, set out the laudable aim of:
“A society which makes timely, far-sighted and well-informed decisions to address the risks and opportunities posed by a changing climate”.
The second NAP endorses this aim so why does it appear to ignore the international risks, especially as the UK, through our Prime Minister, is the global lead on resilience for the UN Secretary-General’s special summit on climate change this September?
The international risks are particularly difficult and sensitive: food security, refugees and migration, violent conflict and the breakdown of international law. But we as a society need to discuss these issues so that we can make well-informed decisions about how we want to address them. Some of these risks fall well outside Defra’s departmental remit but so do many of the climate risks to business, communities and infrastructure. Like climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation needs to be a cross-government priority. My questions for the Minister are: first, how do we ensure that adaptation is a priority right across government; and, secondly, why does our national adaptation plan appear to overlook the significant and serious international climate change risks to the UK, despite the positive lead we are taking on resilience to climate change?
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on securing this important debate and on his excellent and passionate remarks of introduction. Let me say first that we have much to be proud of. We are showing global leadership in combating climate change. For example, a recent PwC study reports that the UK is reducing emissions faster than any other G20 country, while still growing our economy. Moreover, 2018 was the cleanest and greenest year ever for electricity generation as renewables generated more than 37% of UK electricity, up from 6% in 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions have reduced by a quarter since 2010. The Government deserve praise for their actions to decarbonise the power sector, with emissions down by 64% on 1990 levels. These are excellent achievements but there is absolutely no room for complacency. There is so much more to be done, as my noble friend Lord Deben outlined so eloquently and as the report from the Committee on Climate Change today explains.
I will focus most of the rest of my remarks on the big challenge now, which is transport. Those emissions have actually been rising, partly as we are driving more but also because carmakers have not reduced emissions as quickly as they promised. Transport is now the sector with the highest level of emissions. I hope my noble friend the Minister will agree that this must change and that there is a huge opportunity for the UK to lead the world in the transition to electric vehicles. I declare an interest as a very happy driver of an all-electric car and I urge the Government to do more to promote this form of road transport and to get our market moving, as we are falling behind Europe’s leaders. Providing £1.5 billion for supporting low-emission vehicles through their Road to Zero strategy is a start. We are also investing £3.5 billion to reduce emissions from road transport but we need zero emissions, not just low emissions.
So far this year, fully electric vehicles have made up under 1% of new car sales. In Germany the figure is 1.7%, in the Netherlands it is 5% and in Norway, incredibly, 50%. This shows what can be done; there are significant benefits to the planet and to air quality for our citizens if we do so. The UK has more than 17,000 public charging points for electric vehicles, of which around 1,700 are rapid devices. This is an achievement, of course, but far more is needed. Without a better regionally spread network of charging points, we will not reach the leadership position and targets that we could achieve.
We need investment in infrastructure. I hope that the Government could encourage more of our long-term investment funds, including local authority-funded pension schemes and other investors, to look for the stable long-term returns that can come from investing even more in climate change mitigation measures and improvements to our infrastructure. These long-term pension funds have huge resources available; I refer my noble friend the Minister and your Lordships to my registered interests in this area. I believe those resources could be far better utilised in securing often inflation-linked returns, which can help meet their liabilities, by investing in not just the income-producing elements but the early-stage infrastructure. That can deliver better ways of managing the risks and returns of these funds than chasing, for example, government bonds.
Early-stage infrastructure and environmentally friendly investments can deliver equity-like returns to investors willing to seek alternative sources of risk premium, other than pure equity or hedge funds, and alternative sources of stable returns—often inflation-linked—outside both the gilt market and the conventional and supposedly low-risk bond markets. These have potentially been heavily distorted by central bank policies and we do not yet understand what that has done to investment risk for long-term investors. Climate and environmentallyfriendly investments should be a core part of any risk-return management assessment for long-term investors.
In reducing transport sector emissions, I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that having vehicle fleets for company cars is an extremely effective mechanism. The company car market is often overlooked and we could encourage more zero-emission company cars. The Government certainly deserve praise for showing leadership last year by committing to end petrol and diesel sales by 2040. However, it is vital that the Government confirm urgently that future rates of company car tax, beyond April 2021, can bring in the 2% rate for zero-emission vehicles for multiple years beyond that. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could take that back to his department.
I fully agree with my noble friend Lord Deben that this should not be a party-political issue. Encouraging institutional investors to take on more responsibility for investing in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and helping to mitigate the impact of climate change, which is already under way, is for global security and economic stability a national issue, not a political one. I shall not dwell on my concerns about the reduction in government resources that will potentially result from our problems on Brexit. Notwithstanding any of this, by utilising long-term investment resources we could play a leading role in this area of critical importance to the planet, and we must.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)
I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rooker for introducing this debate at a time when we are coming to understand that the timetable for dealing with carbon emissions is much shorter than our generation had hoped. The science underpinning our understanding of carbon emissions and the consequences for the planet is not in doubt. Like my noble friend, in preparation for the debate I read Mrs Thatcher’s speech to the 1989 United Nations conference. She was of course one of our very few Prime Ministers with a scientific background. She spoke then of the,
“vast … amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere”,
and the destruction at the same time,
“on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air”.
It caused surprise at the time but everything she was concerned about in that speech has been borne out by accurate measurement and the evidence of our own eyes.
It is also now clear that we are not moving fast enough to check the growth of carbon gas emissions and that our faith in our ability to find solutions quickly is misplaced. It was nearly 20 years after that speech that a Labour Government were able to bring forward the Climate Change Act 2008, which provided a target of reducing emissions by at least 80% below the 1990 figures by 2050. That target now looks much too leisurely, and the IPCC report of 2018, commissioned by the 195 signatories to the Paris climate agreement, tells us that we simply do not have until 2050.
Despite much good work by the Committee on Climate Change and much effort to reduce emissions from transport and power generation, not enough has happened. There have been welcome efforts to reduce demand for water and heating, but the hoped-for technological solutions to avert or swiftly mitigate the increase in emissions have not been successful. Nuclear power generation has brought with it unsolved problems of disposal of nuclear waste. Wind and hydrogeneration are making a useful contribution, but neither can be rapidly accelerated, and wave power is not proven. Neither have technological efforts to mitigate emissions been successful. There is at the moment no effective method of carbon-emission storage. The proposed investment of £1 billion in 2015 in finding a solution was cancelled a year after it was proposed.
One approach has, however, been a success, and ironically does not depend on technological innovation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Prime Minister spoke of using tropical forests as carbon sinks to mitigate the growth of emissions. In the intervening years, we have realised that we can enlist nature, both as a global community and, significantly, within our own borders. I speak with the benefit of being briefed by my daughter, who works for the Cambridge Conservation Initiative. The combined expertise at CCI, a collaboration of conservation academics and biodiversity organisations, continues to prove that the restoration and recovery of nature—forests, yes, but also peatlands, wetlands, coastal systems and uplands—creates effective carbon sinks, as well as contributing amenities for us all.
One of the most measurable projects recently undertaken is the Great Fen, a large area of the Fens in Cambridgeshire, which used to be increasingly exhausted low-productivity farming land, but has now been rewatered. The process just involved turning off the pumps that have kept that land as farmland since the Dutch engineers installed them in the 17th and 18th centuries. A lot of careful water engineering created the Great Fen. This is now both a lovely park, which provides a wild place to visit for the growing populations of Peterborough and Cambridge, and, critically, a substantial carbon sink. My noble friend Lady Young, alas, is not here today, but she chaired the organisation that brought this about, and I wish she were here.
Several working projects are now managed by the Cambridge Conservation Initiative, including Summit to Sea in mid-Wales and the Cairngorms Connect project in Scotland. The primary focus of these projects is the restoration and recovery of critical ecosystems, but we can expect carbon sequestration, hydroecological changes including flood management, air quality changes and collateral community renewal as added value. Nature-based solutions, in short, are the low-hanging fruit in efforts to counter damaging carbon emissions and mitigate the effects we are already experiencing from climate change.
A report published in 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that it is possible, using natural solutions, to contribute 37% of the reduction in emissions necessary to keep the increase in global warming below 2% by 2030. It would not be difficult to expand this work; it can be done largely as a matter of water engineering. But the Great Fen was partly funded by philanthropy, and Summit to Sea and the Cairngorms projects are largely funded by private individuals and the Arcadia Fund set up by Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin. However, enabling more developments of this sort to contribute to alleviating emissions cannot be achieved by even the most generous private philanthropy. Government money and the will to push through development will be needed to use to the full our natural assets of wetlands and land exhausted by intensive farming and deforestation. This is an area that cannot be left to the market.
Money for measurement and cost-benefit analysis of this area would also be well spent. Good work is happening in several places on researching the precise costs and measuring the benefits of this sort of expansion. Centralising this research could present the Government with a wide choice of projects, with the costs and benefits set out, so that decisions could be made and action taken quickly on which proposals to support. I hope that, in winding up the debate, the Minister will agree on the importance of developing projects that use nature and our land, and can be developed quickly.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we started off so well, but some speeches have tipped well over six minutes, which makes timing for this debate tight now. I ask Peers to conclude their remarks when the clock reaches six minutes.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, in February 2004, I introduced a debate on climate change in your Lordships’ House. It was prompted by the stark warning of the then Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, who said that,
“climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism”.
The Blair Government took Sir David King’s advice seriously and worked up a consensus on the way forward, a point powerfully made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in his excellent introduction. That Government established a Joint Committee of both Houses—of which I was fortunate to be a member—to work on a draft Bill. It took evidence and advice. It proved a worthwhile way forward and the resulting Climate Change Act was a world first. I believe that everything the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said needs to be a lesson learned today.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, was a little upset by the remarks of my noble friend Lady Featherstone, who criticised this Government for squandering four years and the progress made until 2015. Consensus does not mean we should not be able to criticise lack of action where it happens. That is important too. I hope we will build a consensus today, but at the same time we must expect critical friends, or even critical opposition, to move us forward.
I will spend most of my speech on an issue that was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Rooker, Lord Deben and Lord Whitty, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and possibly others, and that is soil. Soil has such a critical role to play in both mitigating and adapting to climate change, so it is a good thing that Defra is working on a new strategy, but I must say to the Minister that the call for research does not explicitly mention carbon storage or climate change. Perhaps it is implicit.
Much worse was an issue I discovered from my recent Written Question: there is a chronic shortage of soil scientists. The answer to this Question on 5 April was that there are five professors of soil science in England and Wales, and 25 academic staff in total. That is certainly not enough to action Defra’s requirements for an innovative approach to monitoring soil health in England and Wales. I ask the Minister what urgent action the Government will take to resolve that issue, if we are going to develop appropriate soil metrics and a new environmental land management scheme, as the Government have set out in their future farming Command Paper and the 25-year environment plan. We must resolve this lack of soil scientists.
There is an interesting international soil initiative. I declare an interest here as a part-owner of a vineyard in France. After the Paris climate change accords of 2015, an initiative was launched by the French called 4 per 1000. Basically, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere increases by 4.3 billion tonnes a year and the world’s soils contain some 1,500 billion tonnes of carbon as organic matter. If we increased that organic matter by just 0.4% a year, primarily by improving and restoring degraded agricultural land, it would go a long way towards halting the annual increase in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. At the same time, it would improve a lot of other things such as soil fertility, which would help food production, water and biodiversity. Those are all worthwhile efforts.
Changing attitudes to soil involves farming very differently. No-till farming is now gaining hold. There is also more mixed farming, with fewer monocultures. Perhaps the plan will look forward to taxing the bad—that is, nitrogen-based fertiliser—and we have already had a lot of discussion about rewarding the good by helping farmers who increase natural capital and farm ecologically. In that regard, I should perhaps declare my co-chairmanship of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Agroecology.
Equally important is clear labelling for consumers, because they need to know that they are buying something that is the best. That brings me to my last point. In the last century, we had labelling of what miles per gallon a car would do; in this century, we need much clearer labelling about carbon footprints. Perhaps we even need to move to a system of personal carbon allowances, with labelling telling us just how much of our personal carbon allowance we are using up. I hope that some think tank will return to personal carbon allowances. Even since 2012, when the last substantial work was done on this issue, all sorts of mechanisms such as phone apps have been developed that make it much easier for a person to know exactly how much carbon they consume. There are those who, like me, want to combine climate change issues with social justice issues. Of course, those with the biggest incomes are often the biggest emitters of carbon, through flying more and having two cars, bigger houses, et cetera. The UK is in a great position technologically to enable us to maintain our lifestyles but to reduce our emissions.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is with huge pleasure that I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on bringing forward the debate today and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on his report, because it is brilliant timing on both their parts. It has been a very happy time for me to listen to the debate; some of the speeches have been incredibly passionate and have saved my having to say some of these things—in fact, I have quite a few scribbles through my notes because others have said what I wanted to say and much more passionately.
It is notable that today we have had the news that the Indonesian Government have decided that they have to move their capital, Jakarta, because some parts of it are sinking at a rate of 10 inches a year. It is the first capital city to move for climate change reasons, which is perhaps an indicator of the way things are going.
For me, the Extinction Rebellion campaign has been a breath of fresh air. It has drawn the climate and ecological emergency to the forefront of political debate. It has moved the debate from whether all this is happening to when we can start to deal with it and thereby preserve humanity and some of our valuable ways of life. That it has been able to cut through all the Brexit noise and force politicians such as us to confront the issues is proof that its tactics are legitimate and highly effective. It joins the ranks of peaceful earth protectors across the world who risk so much in the pursuit of a safe climate and a secure future.
Extinction Rebellion has three simple, core demands. The first is to tell the truth, so that Parliament, having declared a climate and ecological emergency, must work with other institutions and other groups to communicate the need for change. The second is to act now. The Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025. The climate change committee’s report has made some valuable headway, but it was written before Extinction Rebellion’s campaign had really got under way. Sixty per cent of people agree with Extinction Rebellion’s aims, which means that the political climate outside these Houses has moved on and that we can be more ambitious. I am afraid that the net-zero aim of 2050 is not only unambitious but shockingly weak and will not take us to the place of safety that we all need. It is a game-changer; it is wonderful that it has happened, but it is not enough. The third demand by Extinction Rebellion is to go beyond politics. The Government must create and be led by the decisions of citizens’ assemblies on climate and ecological issues.
Let me go into those issues a little more deeply. Telling the truth means admitting that the Government’s existing climate legislation is too weak and too slow. It requires the Government to admit that they are planning to miss their legally binding climate budgets and are trying to find ways to water them down already. It means writing the Paris Agreement into UK law and sticking to the targets. It means having an honest conversation with the electorate about what this means and the scale of change that is needed to set us on the right course.
Telling the truth also means using the statistics and data honestly. It means no longer saying that we have outperformed by reducing greenhouse gas emissions while growing the economy, when we know that this has happened partly because we are importing more from other countries and pretending that their emissions do not count. We cannot fiddle the figures any more; the Government cannot cheat any more on this. Luckily, the climate change committee has advised including shipping and aviation emissions in government figures, which I hope will remove the option of Heathrow expansion, but we should also include our imports. There is always a lot of whataboutery in respect of China and other countries, which are perhaps not doing their bit. We have to accept that we are encouraging their emissions by our imports. We should take responsibility for those import emissions; at the moment, we do not.
Telling the truth means being honest with one another and with ourselves that this is a terrifying state of affairs. Anyone who is not afraid for the future of our planet is either uninformed or living in wilful ignorance. Acting now means taking at least the same amount of political will, Civil Service resource and legislative time that has been spent on Brexit and applying that to the climate and ecological emergency. It means a two-year parliamentary Session with a Queen’s Speech focused entirely on climate and ecology, cancelled recesses and endless statutory instruments. It means strong and far-ranging manifesto commitments from all the political parties which are then implemented obsessively for years to come.
We are acting for the future of our planet, for the future of humanity and for the future of our children and grandchildren. We are acting for the needs of nearly 8 billion humans on earth, along with millions of other species with which we share our home.
Acting now also means serious enforcement and legislation. It means massive state intervention in huge market failures, radical taxation and subsidies, nationalisation of certain industries and the creation of a million climate jobs. It means zero-carbon homes, enormous green infrastructure projects and forging happier, healthier lives with a much smaller footprint on the earth. It also means banning fracking and writing off huge fossil fuel reserves—I advise any Peers who have fossil fuel investments to get rid of them now.
I have had my six minutes; I am going to end. Greta Thunberg said that we should be panicking. Personally, I have been panicking for years. A friend of mine once said that my worst character flaw was saying, “I told you so”. I want to say to the House today, “I told you so”. We have to get on and actually make a difference.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on this important debate about critical decisions being taken by societies and Governments on the key issues of human-induced climate change and the important decisions that need to be made about the future. Yesterday’s report in the UK was certainly a significant contribution.
I declare my interest as a former head of the Met Office, which is a world-leading organisation for climate change research. I am also involved in UK universities, which play a world-leading role in climate science.
Decisions are greatly benefiting from the excellent explanations of the science from the BBC and other media and the many practical measures being taken. Even schoolchildren have been following this. Other noble Lords have referred to their grandchildren; I refer to my scientific granddaughter, who has also greatly enjoyed these programmes. These programmes and public demonstrations, and notices on French motorways, are explaining the need to reduce the artificial emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. We have to avoid the steady rise in concentrations of these gases to avoid a gradual rise of temperature in the atmosphere and on the ocean surface.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, emphasised, public debate and decisions are now focusing on the damage to societies and infrastructure caused by floods, fires, high winds and rising sea levels. The classic case of this is small countries in the Pacific which are likely to have to evacuate their islands as a result of sea-level rise. Environmental dangers to agriculture and industry will also have high costs, as other noble Lords have emphasised. Evidence of human-induced climate change is particularly visible in the polar regions, not only in the melting of sea ice and glaciers but also in the significant effects on weather patterns at lower latitudes, as we have seen with the varied jet stream and polar vortices now regularly referred to in the media. It is quite something when you have to use new expressions to explain the changes taking place.
Noble Lords might be surprised to hear that these models are also extremely important in reassuring about the future. As we learned at a Royal Society meeting in 2015, these models show how, if the rise of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases was to cease—as many noble Lords have talked about—the models show that this would actually lead to the climate patterns returning. In other words, for much of this century we are still in a situation where, if the policies are correct, we will see a return to the nature that we want.
We also need to continue science in order to debate with climate sceptics. There is still a problem with some leading newspapers, as I saw to my surprise on the central page of the Times yesterday. As has been commented on, critical policies for reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere depend on reducing emissions resulting from human activities such as industry and transport and on finding the direct, innovative responses that we need in industry, transport, deforestation and controlling the vast emissions from natural sources of hydrocarbons, such as high melting permafrost and fracking in the northern United States. Soil and water policies are also critical, yet the World Meteorological Organization, at which I used to represent the UK and in which we are very involved, has, regrettably, begun to consider the possibility of downgrading the historical importance of international water programmes. This is an important matter which I hope the Foreign Office will take on board.
Technological developments must minimise the dangers to society and enable new low-carbon designs for societies, especially in endangered and highly populated urban areas where temperatures are threatening human health. For example, solar collectors are a new technology which can be used to minimise high temperatures in tropical urban areas, as large cities in China do now. Urban dangers are also important in coastal areas subject to extreme flooding. We must also consider the exposed, mountainous areas in Nepal. There are other examples where energy technology policies need to be combined with different types of electricity generation. This is why, in the UK, wind and solar have to be combined with other energy systems, particularly nuclear, that can operate in weather conditions when the renewables cannot.
In Asia, the generally low winds and cloudy conditions are driving the need for nuclear energy in, for example, Laos, Vietnam and Singapore. These countries are currently planning for future energy based on nuclear fission, but at the same time there is growing public and private investment in Europe and the United States in nuclear fusion, which may be providing clean energy in the next 10 to 20 years. I declare an interest as a consultant to Tokamak Energy Ltd. Thanks to recent technological breakthroughs in superconducting magnetic fields, in which the UK is a pioneer, and plasma physics, we may see this. The great advantage of fusion is that it will not produce radioactive waste, mentioned by other noble Lords. Indeed, the technology will eventually safely reprocess waste, which is one reason why I am so interested in this advanced technology. I am confident that it will benefit society, as previous developments of science and technology have done.
Considering and explaining the benefits to society is an important role for world leaders. Mrs Thatcher, from long ago, has been spoken about. Let us hope that, when Mr Trump comes here in May, we give him an earful of what the House has been hearing this afternoon.
Lord Stone of Blackheath (Lab)
My Lords, global warming needs urgent action, but it must be conducted simultaneously both horizontally across parties and internationally, as we have heard, and by us all acting at several vertical levels to form a unity of purpose. Extinction Rebellion is waking up people at all four levels. At level 1, individuals now see themselves needing to change their behaviour. At level 2, small enterprises, NGOs and charities are innovating and co-operating. At level 3, huge corporations now see that they must change direction. At level 4, we in government must respond with urgency today at national and international level. I will speak on actions at these four levels. Unless we act at all levels in harmony, we will fail and become extinct as a species.
At the level of the individual, noble Lords will know that I am a practitioner and advocate of mindfulness and yoga. I practise these, and want others to join, not just for health but to change the way I think and act. When one is at the normal, everyday, lower level of consciousness—at one’s amygdala—where we have a “fight or flight” response, one thinks only of me and my family, and now and next week. When one is able to experience mindfully a higher consciousness, one starts to think of the wider good of all beings, and the longer perspective of all time. People are waking up to the realisation that we need to think and act in this long-term, selfless, compassionate way. I met yesterday with the Adot foundation, which says that “giving is receiving”. Its mission is to spread the use of its website, adot.com, which shows that experiencing something greater than one’s habitual self is life enhancing and can save the planet.
I will cite one example at the next level, where small projects need our support to grow and work together. The IPCC says that the barriers to reforestation are lack of political will, finance and stability. It knows that massive tree planting can help save the planet. A registered UK charity, TreeSisters, is already planting 200,000 trees a month. It is calling for reforestation to be embedded in every individual financial transaction. Last year, consumers in the UK made 26 billion transactions. If each transaction over, say, £25, had contained an embedded forest restoration charge of, say, 50p, we would be well on our way to planting the trillion trees for which the planet has space. An independent, ethical lifestyle media company MyGreenPod, is already doing this, adding 50p to every financial transaction on its online marketplace, which sells only products that are good for people and the planet. We as government should set out a way of helping all businesses in the UK collect and donate this surcharge, thereby being a light to all nations.
At the third level, many huge corporations are aware of the issue and have been trying to help for years. As a retailer, I worked for an enlightened company that was conscious of the use of resources and the need to save waste. For those reasons, we used no fancy packaging, no costly window displays and no advertising. We used energy-saving lighting and established the Volcani institute of agriculture in Israel that invented drip irrigation, the Weizmann Institute of Science that pioneered solar energy, and the Shenkar college of textile technology and design that created clothing that lasted for years rather than months. But this is now an emergency. Most businesses today are not designed in the context of the developing climate emergency—hence we must urgently redesign entire industries and businesses.
Last week there was an urgent letter written to the Times, signed by prominent people from huge organisations, including friends and colleagues whom I know to be serious on this point. They included Paul Polman, former CEO of Unilever, Sir Tim Smit from the Eden Project, Jake Hayman, of Ten Years’ Time and the son of our former Lord Speaker, Bevis Watts of Triodos Bank and Gail Bradbrook of Extinction Rebellion. They suggested that businesses should make a declaration that we face a climate change emergency and organise a session at a full board meeting to consider the case for urgent action. They are going to encourage the senior management teams, of which we are part, to do likewise.
Fourthly and finally, to tie all this together we in government must act. There are organisations waiting for new Bills to come from the Government, and they will go into businesses and help them change. The Global Conscious Movement—GCM—is such a grass-roots global consultancy established to utilise the talents, energy and creativity of young professionals to teach big companies the principles and practices of sustainable business. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rooker for this debate. I hope that this House can persuade Her Majesty’s Government to see the urgency and act forcefully and speedily to address this crisis, so that my grandchildren, Ziva, Asher, Elian and one yet to be named, like the grandchildren of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, will be reading Hansard in 30 years’ time and thanking us for having saved the planet.
Lord Lipsey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, certainly knows how to get things done. No sooner did this subject for debate appear on the Order Paper than the streets of London were clogged with Extinction Rebellion demonstrators, yesterday the Commons voted to declare a climate emergency and today we have a 660-page report from the Committee on Climate Change. I think that that is tremendous. Another tremendous thing was how the Extinction Rebellion demonstration was received. I have some critical things to say later, but I thought that the tabloid newspapers would be full of “3 billion tonnes of CO2 released by cars jammed by Extinction Rebellion”, or “Ooh, look how this demonstrator travelled to London in a gas guzzler”, I thought that the establishment would turn on them, but in fact it has not. The demonstrators and their leader were received with great seriousness and respect, and I applaud that.
However, I do not entirely agree with the protesters, for two reasons. First—and this has even been a feature of your Lordships’ debate—we tend to forget how much progress has been made and in how many areas in this field: not just in public consciousness but in actual change. Some 47% of our electricity came from low-carbon sources in 2016: that had doubled since 2010. You can have Parliament sitting through every recess in history but you will not get faster action than that. I fear that campaigners tend to ignore such facts; they turn instinctively to the contemporary language and wisdom that Governments and politicians are fools and liars. Politicians have many faults—we have many faults ourselves—but we are not, on the whole, fools or liars.
Secondly, while applauding their motives, I think that some of the policies they seem to advocate are actually counterproductive in dealing with climate change. Take GM technology. We will have to be able to feed the world in more difficult circumstances in future, yet there has been a knee-jerk reaction against GM technology. I know that the greens are divided on nuclear power, but far too many people instinctively oppose nuclear power, which is the cleanest source of all. As we have heard this afternoon, new forms of nuclear power may emerge which combine safety and a big contribution to reducing CO2.
My final point is about fracking. I shall dedicate my remarks, at slightly greater length, to Natascha Engel, who resigned as fracking tsar this week because the industry is being health-and-safetyed out of existence. I know that some noble Lords have spoken on this. My knowledge is confined to that which I gained when I was on the Economic Affairs Committee which completed, on your Lordships’ behalf, a very serious inquiry into fracking. The bottom-line conclusion is very simple: it halves the amount of emissions that would otherwise take place from fossil fuels and there are no serious risks involved. One witness who appeared before the committee complained that fracking meant using lots of chemicals. That is quite true: you use a lot of H2O in fracking. I asked him what chemicals he had in mind that he did not think were very good. His answer was that he was a hairdresser and could not be expected to answer such questions—this was the leader of the anti-fracking lobby in one area. It is great that he got involved, but we have to be careful that reason does not get lost in all this.
Another danger is that I am not sure that doing everything we can to reduce our emissions is going to solve the problem, particularly while we have a climate change denier in the White House. There may have to be new high-tech solutions which cut through. I commend the work of a former Economist colleague of mine, Oliver Morton, and his book The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering Could Change the World. I will not go into the individual projects—iron fertilisation, for example. This is going to be a real challenge for those who believe, as I do, that we face a threat here. Are we going to take the attitude that these projects are welcome? If the scientists tell us that they will make a big contribution to reducing global warming, should they be embraced? Or are we going to get a lot of glib rhetoric about how this is just a way to get around reducing emissions, and lots of scaremongering about dreadful, and probably imaginary, side effects?
In the end, protests will not solve this crisis. Technological advance, mature policy-making and brave politicians will be needed for that. I hope that the demonstrators will in future deploy not just their hearts but their heads, in support of measures that really could avert this genuinely terrifying threat.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rooker for securing this debate. When we talk about climate change we need to remember who our opponents are: unless we know our opponents it becomes very difficult to make a case. When we talk about climate change we are advancing three propositions. First, there is climate change. Secondly, it is created by or fuelled by human activities. Thirdly, it has or will have certain consequences, such as droughts, floods and agricultural crises. Those who deny climate change deny either one or all three propositions. They deny that there is climate change; or they might say, yes, there is climate change, but it is not created by human activities; or they might say, yes, it is created by human activities but the consequences attributed to it are highly exaggerated and we do not believe it. The important thing for us, therefore, is to show why these three propositions, on which our case rests, are all valid.
I do not have the time to go through all that, but I think we can point to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the NASA report that claimed that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is due to human activities and the fact that in our country, in the House of Commons when the Climate Change Act was going through, 463 MPs supported it and only three were against it. I think one can show, in looking at these considerations, that there is a scientific imperative to deal with the problems climate change poses.
In addition, there is a second ground on which climate change can be pressed, and that is the democratic ground. Morally, of course, we ought to be concerned with the consequences of our actions and how they affect future generations. In this case, it is not just future generations in the abstract. We are talking about future generations concretely present in the shape of children of 12, 13, 14 or 15 asking for their rights. If we ignore future generations, we are ignoring the consequences of our actions for actual, living people and invite intergenerational warfare, which is hardly what we should be asking for.
Having made out the case for climate change control, I want to ask a different question and face the opponents on our side. Obviously, we need to do a great deal at the individual and collective levels on climate change. Look, for example, at the way the report published this morning by the climate change committee demands that we do and do not do certain things. For example, it says that the thermostat must be set at 19 degrees centigrade, that people should not be eating or should be cutting down on beef and lamb, that they should take the bus to work rather than a car and use light bulbs of a certain kind. We are also told that if you are against climate change, you should not travel by air or use packages, because packages contribute between 20% and 30% to greenhouse gases.
If we start thinking along those lines, fully implementing the policy on curtailing the impact of climate change, look at the consequences. Is it realistic to say to people, “You must not travel by air or use bulbs of a certain kind”? It is, but only up to a point. It becomes invasive into people’s lives and liberties. How paternalistic and illiberal it sounds for the Government to produce a report asking people to behave in certain ways. Controlling or countering the reality of climate change requires a profound change in our ways of thinking and living. Unless we genuinely believe that we are prepared to make those changes, we should be careful in what we advocate.
Another thing is worth bearing in mind. We cannot localise climate change: it is a global phenomenon. We therefore need to tackle it globally, but at the global level there are poor countries and rich countries. Poor countries cannot carry their share of the burden. Are rich countries prepared to show more altruism? Again, unless we are convinced that rich countries are prepared to make that sacrifice, it is difficult to discuss climate change. My view is that we should certainly push for climate change measures, but bearing in mind that it will involve sacrifices on our part here in the West and making painful changes to our ways of thinking and living.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for securing this timely climate change debate today. It is an opportunity for us all to focus on and support a strong, determined, non-political pathway for change. As public concern about climate change has increased to levels we have never witnessed before, that concern must be addressed. Climate change has moved to the top of the political agenda, resulting in an urgent need to instigate more decisive action for future generations. Yesterday, the other House acknowledged the climate change plan, which could make Britain the first major economy to reduce its carbon footprint to zero. That is a dramatic change from the current target of a reduction of 80% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.
The UK has become the biggest user of offshore wind energy farms. They have grown up in a relatively short number of years as costs have fallen significantly, with further enhancement to develop the so-called carbon capture utilisation and storage facilities. To continue reducing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and help to drive net emissions to zero, the UK needs to build a number of CCUS plants to hold those millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, that the Humber region is host to one of the UK’s biggest on and offshore wind farms in the UK.
On the face of it, we have a colossal amount to do. The people expect more in the agenda of addressing change. We need to tackle the growing environmental crisis now, because the longer we delay, the harder it will be. Last year, 6.8 tonnes of greenhouse gases were emitted into the atmosphere per head of the UK population, so we must look at the mechanism to bring that down to zero. Everything must be included in the mix for those massive future changes: transport, retrofitting of housing, replacing boilers with heat pumps, and major changes in food production, to name a few. As climate change takes hold, we are now seeing increasing storms, rising sea levels, disappearing coral reefs, catastrophic flooding and ice caps melting. Current temperatures are on course to rise by 3 degrees centigrade, leading to devastating heatwaves and raising the risk of large-scale, irreversible impacts.
Five years ago, nearly 63% of UK electricity was generated by coal or oil, compared to 15% by renewables. Last year, the equation had changed from 63% fossil fuels to 44%, and the proportion for renewables had risen from 15% to nearly 32%. That is a good marker, and 2018 was the greenest and cleanest year.
I mentioned food production. Management practice must improve in agriculture, helping to reduce carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, which will have an impact on future diet requirements and the costs associated. We have also seen a loss of crop yields, wildlife and wetlands. Our countryside has a large part to play in climate change, and we must use it to the best advantage: for example, by freeing up land to plant trees, and looking to increase forest cover from 13% to 17%. Miles of hedgerows have been pulled out, so we need those reinstated. Shrubs can absorb carbon dioxide, as well as enhancing the environment. Nature is waiting. What is the latest number of tree-planting schemes started, completed or in the pipeline?
I am pleased that the UK is leading by example in reducing annual emissions by more than 43% since 1990, but much more is needed. Time is of the essence. As my noble friend Lord Deben said, we cannot hang about too long; we must get a move on to reach the goal of a zero-emission target, enabling our future economy to be cleaner, smarter and more efficient for our future generations.
As we say, we are all in this together: people young and old want to play some part in driving that challenge for change, and in recent days we have seen a call for action. There is no doubt that climate change is the most profound environmental challenge facing the world today. We have a target date for net zero of 2050, but we must have well-designed policies to reach that goal, and climate change must be placed at the heart of our economic agenda.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, in preparing for today’s debate, I looked at the text of a lecture on the subject of the atmosphere and the threat of global warming that I delivered exactly 25 years ago, and which remains on my academic website. It does not seem to be out of date, for the reason that, by 1994, the science of global warming was well established. However, there were uncertainties about the speed of the onset of the process of global warming and its liability to be accelerated through feedback effects. One of those feedback effects is due to the melting of polar ice. It was uncertain how rapidly melting would proceed. Bare seawater is much more absorptive of radiation than are ice and snow, and their melting would serve to accelerate the process of global warming, but to an unknown extent. The melting of the permafrost releases large quantities of methane gas, which has a far greater warming effect than carbon dioxide; this will also serve to accelerate global warming. Photosynthesis, which captures carbon dioxide, and biological decay, which emits it, are both enhanced by warming, but it was uncertain which of these would advance more rapidly. However, the destruction of forests has proceeded at pace, which has reduced the rate of carbon sequestration.
A further reason for the uncertainties was the difficulty in predicting the human response to the crisis of global warming in its various phases. I asserted that the crisis, which was then presently threatened, would become imminent at some stage and then, in a short time, become actual. The nature of the human response would depend to some extent on the duration of these phases. The feedback processes have proved stronger than was widely imagined, and the human response has been much weaker, and the crisis has indeed become actual sooner than one might have imagined.
At the time, there was some optimism that effective action would be taken to staunch carbon dioxide emissions, but these have grown steadily. In 1994, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was less than 360 parts per million by volume. The emissions are following an exponential trend and, today, the concentration exceeds 400 parts per million. Ice core data suggest that the pre-industrial concentration was perhaps 275 parts per million. The ultimate effect of the present levels is bound to be disastrous. The eventual levels may be much higher.
The main reason for the increased burden of atmospheric carbon dioxide has been the advance of manufacturing and the increasing adoption of western lifestyles in the developing economies of Asia. American emissions have been largely unchecked, while in some European countries, such as the UK, they have declined slightly. We have passed rapidly from the era of recognition, when warnings were widely broadcast and timely action to avert a climate catastrophe was first called for, to the present era, which could be described as the age of reckoning, when the catastrophe is upon us. We have squandered our early opportunities and must now act with extreme urgency.
This country has achieved much less in reducing its carbon expenditure than many of us might imagine. It is true that, in generating electricity, we have largely replaced our coal-fired power stations with gas-fired plants and wind farms. Also, our total consumption of electricity is slightly less than it was in the 1980s. These developments have been enabled in the UK by an ongoing process of deindustrialisation. However, if we reckon the carbon costs of what we consume, these have not been reduced. Much of what we consume is now manufactured in countries in which carbon emissions have grown rapidly; other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made that point. Moreover, the climate change committee tells us that we are liable to miss the targets for the reduction of our domestic carbon emissions that were cast in legislation.
How should we react to these circumstances? I will describe three plausible reactions. The first is to adopt a counsel of despair. Our own carbon consumption must seem insignificant in relation to the global total. It can be asserted that our efforts at self-restraint in our emissions cannot have much of a global effect, that they cannot be to our advantage and that they will allow others to act with less restraint. I reject this outlook.
A second and more moral stance is to pursue the course of self-restraint with renewed vigour. It has been proposed that we should seek to exploit renewable sources of power—wind and sun—with increased determination, while enhancing the efficiency of our uses of energy. We should curtail our use of personal transport and insulate our houses. I support these nostrums of parsimony and abstemiousness. However, the difficulty with such a program of austerity is that it would be unlikely to afford us sufficient margins of additional power with which to pursue the electrification of heating and transport, which will be the key to further reductions in our emissions.
The third recommendation is that we should pursue, with the utmost vigour, a technological revolution in the generation and use of electrical power to produce a plenitude that would allow us to supplant all other sources of power. To achieve this, we need to build more nuclear power stations. The surplus power from these stations, which would occur at certain times if they are run at a constant level, should be used to generate hydrogen by electrolysis. The hydrogen would be a source of power in times of high demand for electricity. It should also be available for use in the fuel cells that should power our public and private transport. This technological revolution—the pursuit of which will demand courage—is liable to create a thriving economy, which should be capable of exporting to the rest of the world its solutions for confronting the scourge of global warming.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I thank most warmly my noble friend Lord Rooker for his powerful introduction to the debate and his consistent and ongoing work in this area. It is also important to take this opportunity to put on record our cross-Floor appreciation of the unremitting and passionate commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in this sphere, as well as of the similarly total commitment and enthusiasm of my noble friend Lord Prescott.
It is sometimes important in debates to listen to other people, not just ourselves in this House. The leadership provided by Greta Thunberg has impressed us all, and has been there in the leadership of so many members of civil society for a number of years. I quote Christian Aid:
“There is a global climate emergency. Climate change, which has been largely caused by developed countries, is wreaking havoc in many developing countries. Many are forced to declare a state of emergency due to extreme weather and climate impacts, such as Mozambique in the aftermath of”,
repeated cyclones.
“Climate change is now the biggest factor setting back efforts to end poverty. Extreme weather and climate impacts hit every populated continent in 2018, killing, injuring and displacing many millions of people, and causing major economic damage. 2018 was the fourth-hottest year on record, with average global temperatures nearly 1°C above the pre-industrial average. Current international pledges to cut emissions place us on track for around 3°C of warming—which could have a catastrophic impact. Climate injustice is rampant: richer countries have continued to delay the necessary action and defended incumbent industries and vested interests such as the fossil fuel sector. Meanwhile demands by developing countries for more finance and technology have been largely ignored. Climate finance is not a matter of aid but a matter of justice to repay the debts owed from using up the global carbon budget”,
in our industrial revolutions in the past. It continues:
“Averting further serious impacts of climate change requires an urgent, rapid, and large-scale response by governments all around the world, action and investment which are tantamount to a state of emergency. A state of emergency is justified: the usual politics of incremental change is not enough to cut GHG emissions fast enough. There is massive public support in the north and global south for rapid, large scale action to protect the environment. Politicians must wake up”.
They are right. Indeed, the Secretary-General of the UN himself was right when he spoke out so strongly last year, reminding us of our responsibility to take international action. If we hear nothing else from the Minister in his response today, I hope that he will make a reassuring and convincing case that the arrangements for an emergency are in fact being put in place across government and that all departments are being encouraged to see their role and to play a full and active part in bringing together the essential aggregated policy that will require the mobilisation of the Government as a whole.
Others have spoken of their grandchildren. I will say only this: when I look at my grandsons and granddaughter, and when I think of the generations beyond, I do not know how we can face them unless we take action. What my noble friend Lord Rooker said in opening this debate is crucially important. This is no longer the time for expressions of good intentions and moral conviction; this is the time for action and we need to see it taking place. We have heard from my noble friend that the arrangements and the policies necessary to fulfil what should be done are in place. It is now a matter of putting them into action.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Green Purposes Company that holds a special share in the Green Investment Bank. It is a delight to take part in a debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, given his key role in this House and in Parliament when the Climate Change Act was finally approved just over a decade ago in 2008. It makes me wonder whether determination and enthusiasm about this issue runs on a 10-year cycle. I hope that it does not and that it will be a bit more consistent over the next 10 years. I want also particularly to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on his work on the Committee on Climate Change. Along with a number of other noble Lords, I was privileged to be at the presentation of the report this morning. We were asked by the chief executive, Chris Stark, to read the whole document because it is comprehensive and it will do us good. That is quite a big ask for us these days, but it is good. Having said that, one of the things about this debate is that it generates passion, which there needs to be, along with some attitude. I was a little disappointed with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, when he attacked my noble friend Lady Featherstone. Believe me: you are both on the same side on this issue, and I am sure that that is true for this subject more generally, as it was back in 2008.
It is important not only that we agree but that we call government to account, because that is what Parliament and this Chamber is partly about. It is impossible not to, as my noble friend did, mention the car crash at the time of regime change in 2015. Then, frankly, onshore wind disappeared, carbon capture and storage ended, and there was the vandalism of stopping the zero carbon homes initiative. Not only that, the Department of Energy and Climate Change was abolished, which illustrated all too well where we were. The person who instigated that is no longer in the Government and in fact is no longer in Parliament; he edits the local evening rag in London and is doing a great job there. But what that says to me is that if there is one thing the Government need do on climate change—be it the current Government or whatever we have in the future—it is to get the Treasury on board. We have to make sure that more than anyone else, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the standard bearer for climate change and this particular crisis. For the past four years we have been resting on our laurels because of those changes. While I do not for a moment question the authentic wish and determination of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, Claire Perry MP and Greg Clark MP to implement this policy, more needs to happen.
The outcome of resting on our laurels is that the Committee on Climate Change now says that we will not meet our fourth and fifth carbon budgets even as they are at the moment; that is, aiming for an 80% reduction by 2050. The fourth budget will start in 2023, which is only four years ahead. I have only one question for the Minister. I cannot ask him whether the Government will commit to meeting the aims set out in the report published this morning because that is not reasonable. The Government first have to consider it. However, can he tell us what actions the Government will take to meet their current commitments to the fourth and fifth carbon budgets? At the moment we have had a lot of very good and worthy pieces of paper. We have had a number of strategies, including the Resources and Waste Strategy, the Clean Growth Strategy, the 25-year environment plan, and the Road to Zero Strategy, but what is the outcome of those?
Let us look at some of the major emitting sectors. On power generation, yes, the past Administrations of this country have done very well. We now have a hole in terms of nuclear, given that the Toshiba and Hitachi stations do not look like they will go ahead. However, the one thing I give absolute credit to the Government for is carrying on with contracts for difference for offshore wind. A further 900 turbines are going to be delivered under the present plans. That is excellent but it is not going to do everything, so we need to improve in that area.
Heating, mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, is a big issue. We have got nowhere on that and we are still discussing it. I was delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, brought up transport. We are seeing emissions rise through use of white vans for mail order deliveries. While I have not looked at the sales, I have checked the stock of electric vehicles. What percentage of our total stock of motor transport is electric? It is 0.2%: one-fifth of 1% of vehicles on our roads are electric, so we still have a huge distance to go. Sir John Armitt of the National Infrastructure Commission reminded us only last week that we absolutely must have a working infrastructure of charging points. That will give people the courage to buy electric vehicles because they will know that they can drive them anywhere. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, we do not have that at the moment.
I turn to agriculture and land use. The NFU has now committed to zero carbon by 2040, although that is quite sketchy. But, again, we are seeing no real action. Our peatland areas are of concern to me. They act as one of our biggest carbon sinks, but we still have a voluntary code governing the use of peat in horticultural compost. That use is actually going up rather than coming down. We need mandatory controls on that. I am delighted that Claire Perry has said that we should have carbon capture and storage schemes operating by 2030, but we have already been told by other experts that as things stand in the sector, it will not happen commercially.
The new chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, Chris Stark, told us earlier that in the past the plan was to do all of these things serially, working through the major sectors one after the other. We now have to do them all at the same time and that is going to be a challenge, but it is doable with our current technology. I want to congratulate the Committee on Climate Change on not factoring in future technologies. The report is on existing technologies and, taking the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about bringing the date forward, I hope that, when that technology changes, the date is brought forward. It certainly needs to be.
I have perhaps sounded a little pessimistic. As I did in the debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in the Moses Room only a month ago—which was rather less well attended—I will go through some of the huge benefits we get from meeting these targets. One is clean air, which is already a rising political issue. Another is better health. We are going to have higher and better-skilled employment and, I believe, strong and robust economic growth in this sector. We will also have a circular economy—it is not just about carbon emissions—in which we use the resources of our planet again, circulate them and make that sustainable. By following this new trajectory of zero carbon by 2050, we as a nation take back that leadership on climate change that I believe we have partly—only partly—lost over the last four years.
I have really enjoyed this debate. What I really like about it is the passion, the attitude and the fact that we are agreed; there are no climate change deniers here today, as the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, mentioned. We now know that this is the truth. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches might want to call the Government to account, but we are desperate to join Members of all other parties and none in this House to work towards the solution and achieve zero carbon emissions in 2050.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rooker for introducing this very timely debate and thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I congratulate him on his introduction and his choice of title,
“that this House takes note of Her Majesty’s Government’s legal responsibility”.
Against the background of recent events and demonstrations, it is time to show leadership and reset the parameters, taking legislative action in addition to resetting policy areas. I declare my interest in having five grandchildren.
Parliament is excellent at framing policies, debating issues and defining problems. However, there is a general lack of profile of this activity outside Parliament, such that to the public there seems to be a lack of activity, urgency and will. It is certainly not helped by trivialisation in the media, whereby today’s important report by the Committee on Climate Change is portrayed as merely calling for everyone to wear a sweater and turn down the heating. If only it were that simple. Dialogue with the public has certainly been helped by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Michael Gove, admitting that not enough has been done, in contrast to the self-congratulatory stance recently taken by other members of the Government. By all means we will give credit where it is due—as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, admits—but let us get real. The climate emergency movement is to be congratulated on the way it has raised the profile of climate change and underlined its importance. Let us take up the challenge rather than argue about how to police such protests.
First, we need to get our figures right. Rather than self-congratulatory responses, let us look at whether Greta Thunberg is correct and include all forms of emissions, including aviation and shipping. Let us look at the built environment and at democratising responses so that everyone realises not only that they have responsibilities but that they must take individual action. All organisations must also undertake their own audits and put their own interpretations on how they must respond in their actions.
Let us look at the pace of change. The IPCC has given Governments its assessments of the science. The pace of change must quicken to bring about a new, green industrial revolution. In recognising and identifying what this information tells us, it is for Governments to reset legal targets for eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions within a demanding timeframe. Labour is taking the lead on this, and it is interesting that the Committee on Climate Change agrees in principle with the Labour target to achieve net zero emissions before 2050. This requires milestones to be set ahead to build in a pathway to survival and the elimination of threats. In recognition of the right culture that must be embedded throughout government, local authorities, organisations and individuals, these targets must apply across the board. For example, energy efficiency measures must include upgrading all buildings and households to an EPC band C standard by 2030 to undertake the demand-side response in addition to the decarbonisation of supply. The democratisation of response must be inclusive, so that Governments do not cut and curtail needed contributions from feed-in tariff schemes, necessary infrastructure development such as the continued successful rollout of smart meters, and other technological advances.
These targets will then set the parameters against which the Government and Parliament must develop sustainable, stable policies consistent with net zero emissions. The Liberal Democrats are certainly right to point out the policy reversals following the coalition’s end that mean the carbon budgets could well be missed. Yes, assumptions will need to be made, such as that nuclear new build will materialise to de-risk the extension of old, obsolete power stations. Yes, power margin tolerance must be expanded by reducing demand through energy efficiencies. Yes, developments are needed in battery technology and storage to cope with the divergence in responses to weather patterns as regards whether the UK is experiencing a long high-pressure period. Yes, more difficult solutions are needed in transport and heat, so that having eliminated coal—with the exception, at the moment, of China—we now turn with urgency towards eliminating oil and diesel.
Contributions from noble Lords have highlighted other important areas such as sea levels, farming, soils and water, hydrogen, afforestation and rewilding, investment funds, biodiversity and air, international effects, offsets and actions and social justice. All these issues and options for change must be identified, pursued and communicated. The Government, Parliament and public life have the necessary forums and structures to be utilised: the all-party groups, the National Infrastructure Commission, the various committees on climate change, the Environmental Audit Committee and universities’ academic modelling activities, abilities and research, with parallels in the devolved Administrations.
It needs to be recognised that we have not developed all the tools we may need. We need to revisit carbon capture and storage; tidal power still needs to be trialled and the Swansea tidal scheme reassessed; flexibility and its costs will need to be included. Naturally, the costs of these transformations need to be borne in mind. Putting all these costs at the door of consumers and households as a way to avoid action and responsibility needs to be examined—not to overburden consumers but to reassess the balance with taxation. Making consumers pay is regressive. If ever there was a creative accountancy scheme it was the Government’s levy control framework. The costs of delay and deferment of action must be recognised.
Can the Minister map out the Government’s response? Will the Government update the Climate Change Act to incorporate the new targets from the Committee on Climate Change? Will the Government use the forthcoming environment Bill to set out new milestones and necessary action? Will the Government broaden the forthcoming White Paper on energy to set out the wide-response policy developments needed? The Minister today needs to start the answers, and the Government need to use the vehicles to answer pertinent questions such as: why are emission reductions diminishing year on year, falling by only 1.5% last year against 3.2% the year before and higher percentages in earlier years? Can the Minster explain why the UK’s emissions from industrial processes, waste management and even agriculture rose between 2016 and 2017? Can he answer how the Government will meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets? Can he explain why emissions in the transport sector are higher than they were in 2010; why electric vehicles represented only 2.7% of new car sales in the UK in 2018 against, for example, a high 31% in Norway; and does he take responsibility for the UK’s sluggish transformation of the transport sector?
This debate has highlighted how we need to respond. It is a challenge to examine every aspect of everyday activity, and the Government need to reorganise and recognise the legal responsibilities that cannot be avoided.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, like all other noble Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for securing a timely and high-quality debate. I also thank him, as always, for his positive tone. He perhaps does not like me saying that, but on this occasion he was positive—I should probably say that he does not always want to be positive on other issues.
All noble Lords have made clear the importance of working together and, looking back on the history of these matters, I am reminded that that is what we have done. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned my friend Lady Thatcher, who made a great speech in 1989—a time when my noble friend Lord Deben was in government and possibly even wrote the speech—the first from a government leader warning the rest of the world about the dangers facing us.
In talking about the history, it is worth mentioning the cross-party support for the Climate Change Act 2008, which the Labour Government took through. As the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, will remember, it had support from the Opposition. We recommended amendments increasing the targets, which the then Government accepted and we all took forward. This Government are well aware of their responsibilities under the Climate Change Act and, however much the noble Lord worries about the fact that no Parliament can bind its successor, he knows that we have followed that Climate Change Act and stuck with it. We have not sought to amend it downwards, if I can put it that way, and want to continue with it. It is important for us to remind ourselves of the history of what we have achieved under the coalition Government and the current Government, and what we are still achieving.
That legislative framework, with its ambitious package of policy proposals, has been matched by a vigorous programme of international action as we work and invest to help other countries mitigate and adapt to—I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, said about adaptation—the impacts of climate change. I hope that, as a result, this country can offer leadership and encouragement to the rest of the world. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, asked for action. There has been and will continue to be action on what we can achieve domestically and what we can do in the wider world, either by our individual actions or through the process of offering encouragement.
As the House will be aware, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will publish an energy White Paper in the summer which will seek to address the challenges arising from the transformation of the energy system over the coming decades. That will be important, as many of my noble friends have pointed out; my noble friend Lady Altmann referred to electric cars and the strains they will put on the electricity system. The White Paper will take a long-term view of the energy requirements—up to 2050—consistent with what the Government wish to do on climate change.
We are already seeing the impacts of climate change around the world. Our actions have been determined but we know that more is needed. Last October, the IPCC published its special report on global warming. Its conclusions were stark. Our current rate of warming could see us reaching 1.5 degrees as soon as 2030, which would present many of the threats highlighted by noble Lords in the debate, including to food security, water supply, infrastructure, biodiversity and the ecosystem as a whole.
The science is now clear, and we are witnessing a groundswell of public concern, to which noble Lords have referred. There is an increased sense of urgency and more vocal demands for action. That is why we are seeking to a play a role, both domestically and internationally. I shall address both roles in turn, starting with the domestic sector.
Our legally binding carbon targets, set by our world-leading Climate Change Act, are among the most stretching in the world. We have achieved a great deal since 1990: we have reduced emissions by 42%, while growing our economy by 72%. Doubts have been expressed—first, by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and then by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others—about the system of accounting. We have to accept the system that we have, because we cannot change it unless we have the agreement of others. Perhaps that could come in the future but, at the moment, under the current system of accounting, we have reduced our emissions by 42% and, importantly, increased our economy by 72%.
At this point, it is worth looking at the opportunities presented by the growing green economy. Some 400,000 jobs have been created, and we estimate that that figure could rise to 2 million by 2030. The sector is growing faster than the main economy—up by some 11% per annum—with exports estimated to be worth between £60 billion and £170 billion by 2030. The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, referred to opportunities at a local level for areas such as the Humber and what could be—and I am sure will be—achieved there. If the noble Lord were to invite me to the Humber and show me what it is doing, its local industrial strategy and opportunities, I would be more than happy to go. However, one should also look at other opportunities, and I will refer to those in due course.
In 2017, we published our clean growth strategy, setting out our policies and proposals for further decarbonising the economy in the 2020s and the illustrative pathways out to 2050. The strategy also sets out our investment of more than £2.5 billion to support low-carbon innovation from 2015 to 2021, as we seek to realise the opportunities—I again stress the word “opportunities”—of the global shift to a low-carbon economy. I shall give just a few examples of the action we are taking.
In power, 50% of our electricity now comes from clean sources—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for reminding the House of this—and by 2025 we will have phased out coal from our energy mix in its entirety. As a Cumbrian, I shall pause here, because I see the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in his place. Since there was some mention of consent being granted for a new deep mine in Cumbria, I will say that that decision has been made. However, it is not coal for energy consumption but coking coal for the production of steel. At this stage, we have no other way of producing steel without using that coal. The alternative would be to import it across the seas from other, possibly rather dubious, parts of the world. I think it is better to take it out of the mines in that mining area. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, does not agree with me.
On 7 March, we published our offshore wind sector deal. It pledges that 30% of British electricity can come from offshore wind by 2030. We have seen dramatic growth in the use of offshore wind and, it is worth reminding the House, an enormous reduction in the cost of offshore wind. We have seen the same in solar power as a result of its use, with enormous reductions in the cost. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked us to continue to look at tidal and mentioned the Swansea Bay barrage scheme, which we rejected on the grounds of cost. We will of course go on looking at issues such as tidal, but I do not think there are likely to be opportunities for dramatic reductions in costs for schemes of that sort because they are largely about putting large amounts of concrete—a rather carbon-producing product—into the ground, whereas with offshore wind and solar there are genuine opportunities to reduce costs, and we will continue to do so.
There are other renewables that we will continue to look at and research. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, that I was very interested to see old mine shafts in a mining park in Glasgow being used as heat pumps. I do not understand the science of it—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will no doubt help me out on this—but it is wonderful to see that old mining areas can possibly make a contribution to renewables by making use of those old mine shafts and what goes with them.
There are all sorts of other things that we can and will be doing in research into renewal. One thinks of all the work that goes into storage. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, touched on the production of hydrogen from nuclear power stations. One can also look at the production of hydrogen from wind farms—I have seen it in Orkney—that can be used in transport or other things. We can do research into artificial intelligence and other such things to improve the smartness of our grid. All this can improve energy efficiency, make better use of power and reduce our consumption. I could go on, but I would be in danger of running out of time.
I now turn briefly to my noble friend’s report. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Deben and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for all the work they have done in producing it. It is a great, big, square book. As they said, there are 600 pages, and I make an honest confession that I have not even opened it yet, because I got it only this morning. However, it will be studied in the department by Ministers in due course. I believe we acted rightly and quickly in commissioning that report from independent experts from my noble friend’s committee to provide that advice. It has come at a crucial moment and will be worth serious study. I guarantee that we will study it and I guarantee my noble friend that, in due course, my right honourable friends the Secretary of State and Claire Perry will respond to it and take it forward in the most appropriate way.
I said that I want to talk about what we are doing domestically, but it is also very important that I now turn to our role internationally, what we are doing and how important it is. The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, talked about that from his experience. We can do an awful lot not only by example—I refer to the history—in the way we have shown how individual countries can cut their emissions and at the same time grow economically. We can show that since we have possibly the best record in the G7 or even the G20 since 1990, but obviously we can do more and we will continue to do more. We have offered to host COP 26 next year, which will be a pivotal global moment to take stock, encourage global ambition and prepare the ground for further action.
We know, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, said, that climate change is a risk multiplier with the potential to exacerbate global instability through resource stress, population displacement and the impact on trade and global economic and food security. For too many people, climate change is already a matter of life and death. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, stressed this. Millions around the world have been left without homes or livelihoods, as we have seen recently following the cyclone that affected Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Malawi. We are promoting climate security internationally and are helping Governments build resilience while reducing emissions. Through the UK-led Centre for Global Disaster Protection, we are working with developing countries to increase their preparedness for and resilience to climate change and natural disasters. Through our world-leading international climate finance, we are supporting cleaner economic growth and so far have helped some 17 million people with improved access to clean energy and some 47 million people to cope with the effects of climate change. Between 2016 and 2021, we are providing at least £5.8 billion in climate finance and are aiming to spend half of that on building resilience and half on emissions reduction.
I shall say a word or two about that. I remind the House—I think this was a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann—that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary announced only yesterday three major new aid programmes to help farmers across Africa and in southern Africa affected by climate change and to boost climate resilience in Ethiopia. We are also playing a key role in the commitment from developed countries to mobilise $100 billion a year in climate finance from 2020. The UK will co-lead efforts on resilience and adaptation ahead of the United Nations Secretary-General’s climate action summit in September. Investing in resilience not only reduces the risk to lives and livelihoods but is the opportunity we talked about to create jobs, spread prosperity, accelerate development and enhance security.
I believe this has been a good debate and that—
Lord Howell of Guildford
I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting, but he is obviously coming to the end of his speech. Our green targets, and indeed those of the wider world, depend heavily on the successful development of low carbon nuclear power. As I indicated, and as is widely seen, our nuclear power programme is in some difficulties at the moment, yet my noble friend has made no mention of that. Would he do so please?
Lord Henley
I repeat a commitment that I have given to my noble friend before—that we remain committed to nuclear power. I accept that we will not have the Moorside development in Cumbria that we were hoping for, nor the Wylfa development, but we continue to believe that there is a role for nuclear power. We continue to get considerable amounts of energy from nuclear power. My noble friend will no doubt be ready for the White Paper that I talked about earlier and there will be further announcements from my right honourable friend in due course. However, I offer him my assurance that we certainly continue to see a role for nuclear power.
I believe that I am coming to the end of my time. I end by thanking the noble Lord and giving that assurance. I believe that we and all other parties and other Governments have achieved a great deal. We have demonstrated to the world how emissions reductions can be delivered while at the same time—I think this is important—growing not only our own economy but those of other countries. Lifting countries out of poverty will be better for them. There is no point in imposing a hair-shirt on ourselves if it imposes an even worse hair-shirt on the rest of the world. We will continue to take action in the United Kingdom, taking our strong progress to date as a template for going further, and we will help other countries to do the same.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I am grateful for the privilege of kicking off the debate this morning, and I am grateful to everyone who has contributed. I want to say one thing: it was no accident that at no time in my speech did I refer to any specific political party. I am not interested in Labour or Tory targets; this issue has to transcend the parties so that we do not get a gap, as we have had over the last few years, and we have to deliver. If we get the economics of climate change right, we will be on the verge of an economic boom in a way that we never envisaged in the past.
Antimicrobial Resistance
(5 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lansley
That this House takes note of Tackling Antimicrobial Resistance 2019-2024: the UK’s five-year national action plan.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is my privilege to move that the House takes note of this government publication. I am very grateful for the opportunity to secure this debate and, in my case, to return to the issue of antimicrobial resistance. I was fortunate enough to have a debate on this subject about three years ago, and indeed other noble Lords have also initiated debates on it. It is important that we do so. Today is a powerful illustration of where we can give ground to the climate change debate. However, there is more than one issue on which it is really important that we have these opportunities for debate, not least because they give us the chance, over a slightly longer period, to realise the complexity and multifaceted character of the challenges we face and the need for us to work intensively and consistently to deal with them.
I am grateful to noble Lords for participating in the debate. It is evident from conversations I have had and communications I have received that, for every one of us here, there are two or three more who would have liked to be here and to have contributed. I hope that future opportunities will offer themselves.
It is not in the custom of this House to say so but, if it had been down to me, I would have been “taking note with approval” of the Government’s national action plan. I say that very straightforwardly. My purpose is not to criticise the national action plan but to commend the initial five-year plan and the refresh published in January. The timeliness of this debate was further illustrated by the fact that on Monday the United Nations Interagency Coordination Group on Antimicrobial Resistance reported to the Secretary-General with a document that said:
“Unless the world acts urgently, antimicrobial resistance will have disastrous impact within a generation”.
In many debates we have understood the scale of the threat that we face. Indeed, when I was in the coalition Government, we included, for the first time, AMR as one of the top-tier risks in the national risk assessment and we understood its character. I was proud of the fact that shortly after I ceased to be Secretary of State—although none the less the work had begun—we saw the publication of the first five-year action plan, which ran from 2013 to 2018.
An illustration of the nature of the problem we face is that UK data—the Minister may refer to some of it later—clearly shows that there has been a significant reduction in antibiotic prescribing for animals and there is clearly some reduction in the extent of drug-resistant infections that animals for food production are harbouring. In human health, there has been something like a 6% reduction over five years in the prescribing of antibiotics, which compares with about a 6% increase in the preceding five years. None the less, the burden of infection and antibiotic-resistant infections among the human population in the United Kingdom is not going down. It is at best stable and some specific drug-resistant pathogens are increasing.
That tells us—it is something that I think we all know—that we are dealing not with a static problem but with a dynamic threat. The problem is that bacteria are rapidly evolving and adaptable, and the number of drug-resistant pathogens will rapidly increase. They have the capacity to swap DNA, so they will be able to acquire resistance to new antibacterial agents. We are also seeing the emergence of some drug-resistant pathogens; they are resistant to a number of antibiotics. Indeed, I noted that about three and a half years ago America was particularly worried about the presence of a pan-resistant infection. I think it was resistant to about 21 different antibiotics. Therefore, it is not simply a case of increasingly having to combine antibiotics and other treatments to deal with these drug-resistant infections; we have to try to ensure that we reduce the threat.
The UN document, published on Monday, also said:
“The challenges of antimicrobial resistance are complex and multifaceted, but they are not insurmountable”.
That goes to the heart of this debate. From looking at the list of speakers, I know that this afternoon we will understand that there is a range of approaches, all of which have to be pursued. I do not for a minute say that the issues I propose to focus on are more important than others on which we have to work. Antimicrobes in the environment and so on are very important but I do not propose to dwell on them. None the less, it demonstrates that the original national action plan published in the United Kingdom and the international work that has been done have focused on a one-health approach. However, it is terrifically important that we understand that we have to work across the environment, animal health and human health to make progress. The joint publication by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs demonstrates the Government’s commitment to working on a “one health” basis.
I will focus on one sentence from page 74 of the Government’s January report, which relates to the development of new therapeutics. The report says that one of the Government’s objectives is the development of “alternative strategies” to try to ensure that we can bring forward new therapeutics to deal with and combat antibiotic resistance. Part of that means that we therefore need to understand how we can develop new therapeutic agents. Part of that is academic research; it is not just about therapies, but diagnostics—I think in the last debate the noble Lord, Lord Rees, instanced the Longitude Prize which Nesta was pursuing. That continues, four years later, with the objective of delivering additional diagnostics. Prizes for academic research seem to be stimulating a range of teams to try to respond. Not only do we have to promote and fund academic research but pull the fruits of that initial academic work through to therapeutic agents we can deploy in practice for human health.
We seem to be going backwards on this. I think three major pharmaceutical companies have ceased their antibiotic research activity in the last 18 months—including Novartis, which is notable given its scale and reputation. In America a start-up company was developing a therapy that was given FDA approval in July 2018 for the use of plazomicin in complex urinary tract infections. This company filed for bankruptcy in early April. Over the course of last year, it secured no more than about $1 million of business. What is happening here? A new drug is approved for use and there is no revenue to support it. This is exactly the problem for antibiotics. Novel antibiotics such as these get a relatively narrow indication for use, because antibiotics are not broad-spectrum—they are very targeted. Also, as they come into use, they are pretty much a last-line therapy for use in rare circumstances, so they do not get bought very much. This company, like many pharmaceutical companies starting out, could be supported across the so-called valley of death by the funding support of CARB-X, only to find that there is a desert. There is no funding to make this happen.
That is where the Government in this country are looking to develop a new business model that helps bring through those new therapies, but that is a way off. A project team is being established and it will probably be something like another 18 months beyond that before we see what this business model may look like. We need more urgency. We need to think about what this model looks like, and at least put preparations in place, even if we have to add data and specifics to it as the work goes along.
The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, published a seminal review and report on this. First, he said that we want play and pay. That is, those in the pharmaceutical industry should be either engaging in this research—that is, playing—or paying. Frankly, I do not think that will work. It will just be treated as a tax on the pharmaceutical industry. He now seems to have said that he is rather giving up on this and that therefore the Government should take it over. I am afraid there is no evidence to support the proposition that Governments are better at innovation than the private sector. We need to combine in public and private partnerships. In that context, we need, as I think the Government intend, to recognise that this is about giving those bringing forward new therapeutics the confidence that they will be paid for. From the Government’s point of view, that has to be a proportionate and reasonable amount, and it has to be attractive.
The UK represents 3% of the global drugs market. We will not be able to do this on our own. That is why I return to the point in the Government’s national action plan that we have to work internationally—not just as the Government do with the Fleming Fund, promoting national action plans and better prescribing globally, which is absolutely right and very valuable, but through the richest countries coming together. They have to establish, effectively, a global fund. We have a global fund for HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis at the moment; perhaps they could enhance and add to that— it would be a substantial enhancement—to pull through the new therapies that will enable us to combat antibiotics.
That will require action from America, Japan and ourselves. I should declare an interest as chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group, and I particularly mention Japan because it has the presidency of the G20. In Osaka at the end of June, for the first time Health and Finance Ministers will meet together shortly before the Heads of Government do. Health and finance should be talking together, because in so many contexts the economy and the health of the nation fundamentally depend on each other. That is a moment. I know my counterpart in Japan—who, as it happens, is a former Japanese Health Minister—and his colleagues would be very interested in working together through the G20 in Osaka to launch an initiative that would enable us to deliver on a major programme for issuing prizes for research and determining the price that will enable us to pull through new therapeutics for the future.
With apologies for the many other issues that need to be covered—I know that many noble Lords will want to raise them—I will focus on that one. I hope the Government will use the global leadership that the United Kingdom has already demonstrated, not least with the marvellous work done by Professor Dame Sally Davies, who is due to retire in the autumn—knowing her, I do not think she will be letting go of this at all. We will welcome her to Cambridge in the autumn, but I suspect that she will continue to travel the world pushing this issue forward. We have the research, the capacity, some of the resources and the ability to take a lead internationally to bring new therapeutics and diagnostics through to the marketplace, and demonstrate that we can stem the tide of antibiotic resistance. I beg to move.
Lord Crathorne (Con)
I congratulate my noble friend on getting this debate. Prior to this has been a debate on climate change, but this is just as important. We know from my noble friend’s fine speech the importance of finding a solution to AMR. I will certainly not repeat any of the things he has said so eloquently, but it is good news that the Government in their five-year plan are taking this extremely seriously.
First, I declare an interest as having a small number of shares in a company called Helperby Therapeutics, which is involved with trying to find a solution to the AMR problem. There is no question that the world is facing a crisis. Although there are still some climate change sceptics, I do not think that there is anyone who does not believe that we are facing a catastrophe on this.
Margaret Chan, the former director-general of the World Health Organization, said that,
“antimicrobial resistance is a global crisis—a slow motion tsunami. The situation is bad, and getting worse”.
The problem has really arisen because pharmaceutical companies have thus far failed to find a solution. What is particularly worrying is that many of the big pharmaceuticals have left the field, basically because of the massive costs of bringing a drug to the market and the prospect of not being able to make it economically viable.
A documentary film called “Resistance Fighters” has just been made. I mention it so that noble Lords can keep an eye out for it, as the hope is that it will air on television in England. The film shows how much the problem has been ignored for a long time, against better judgment, and makes it clear how new resistance mechanisms could emerge that were hardly conceivable until recently. It also looks at how the mass use of antibiotics in animal fattening can lead to the uncontrolled release of resistant germs into the environment. Negligence and powerful economic interests, which put profit well above the well-being of people, have been putting lives at risk.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, will talk about the use of antibiotics in animals, but I will quote one set of statistics which I found particularly interesting. In 2016, 80% of all antibiotics administered in the USA were used in animal feed. That is a total of 15 million kilograms, which is equivalent to 300 milligrams of antibiotics per kilogram of produced meat. All hearings on the topic of antibiotic growth promoters were completely blocked in the US Congress for 40 years, despite scientifically proven correlations. Most recently, the US pharmaceutical industry made an annual turnover of $13 billion with antibiotics in animal feed. I think that is quite something.
There was an interesting article in the Times on 14 February, entitled “Rise of superbugs puts everyday surgical operations in jeopardy”. It said that:
“Tens of thousands of patients in Britain are struck down by superbugs because antibiotics to protect them during surgery have failed, a global study says.
One in five infections picked up during common operations worldwide is resistant to standard antibiotics, suggests research that reveals how far resistance to drugs has advanced towards a so-called doomsday scenario”.
I had a successful operation for colon cancer 18 months ago and was given a large course of antibiotics to ensure that no infection developed—and none did. It was quite a thought that if antibiotics did not work, in the worst-case scenario, that antibiotic treatment would no longer be possible. Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer, has warned of a “post-antibiotic apocalypse”.
The Times article describes a study which looked specifically at gastro-intestinal surgery,
“which is carried out a million times a year in British hospitals”,
and where infection is really quite common. The study showed that antibiotics were becoming measurably less effective. According to the article, Dr Harrison of the University of Edinburgh said that,
“the results could apply to many more of the five million surgical procedures carried out in Britain each year”.
That is an astonishing number—5 million procedures. The article continues:
“Nicholas Brown, a consultant medical microbiologist at Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge and director of the campaign group Antibiotic Action, said the findings were a sign that standard preventative antibiotics were failing. He said: ‘The doomsday scenario, the end of the antibiotic era, is in some countries only a theoretical possibility but in other countries it is beginning to have a very significant impact’”.
Professor Anthony Coates, who started Helperby Therapeutics, told me that, as the big pharmaceuticals leave the field, it leaves just a handful of small companies, including Helperby, to “fight on alone”. If that were not bad enough, one of the most promising pharmaceutical companies filed for bankruptcy a few weeks ago—my noble friend Lord Lansley referred to this. This was because it had developed a new antibiotic entity, which cost $500 million to develop. To recuperate these high costs, the company marketed its product for nine months at a price of $10,000 per course. Basically, that price is too high for the antibiotic market, although cancer drugs sell successfully for a lot more than that. The company sold only 50 courses in nine months, and this was not viable.
Professor Coates told me that he was very concerned that all the rest of the handful of small companies developing antibiotics were in the same boat. In other words, they are developing expensive new chemical entities, so when they get to market, they will struggle to survive. Interestingly, Helperby is going down a slightly different route by experimenting with the combination of existing drugs. If it can make that work, that will be marketable at a much more reasonable price.
Professor Coates also said that he thinks the thing that is missing from this key market is market-entry rewards. This is a reward to companies which reach the market with a new antibiotic or combination. The Government introduced NHS incentives for new antibiotics, which is a good start, but unfortunately it did not make any difference to the company which has just gone bankrupt. Professor Coates also said that he thinks that this will make no difference to other small companies, including Helperby, because they nearly all launched in the USA. Apparently the NHS does not have a very good reputation for welcoming new drugs. Perhaps that is one of the things that the Government could look at.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on securing this very important debate. My interest in this issue is partly due to the work I do through the International Longevity Centre UK, which I established 20 years ago. It is one of 16 organisations across the world which looks at these sorts of issues. The ILC-UK, following the UN’s high-level meeting in 2016, held its Jack Watters memorial debate on the subject and produced a report on antimicrobial resistance in 2017. That report links to one of the ILC’s other key workstreams: the promotion of vaccines. I chaired a meeting on that vital issue in this House only last month.
This debate is very timely given that the Government published their new five-year plan in January of this year. There is now renewed vigour from the Government to tackle this issue. I hope that it will be tackled because, as noble Lords have said, this is a major, worldwide challenge and it needs to be taken very seriously. I cannot overemphasise that. The health of our whole population is at risk, but especially that of older people, who are more vulnerable to illness and disability than younger people. I was grateful to receive certain facts and figures from the British Society for Immunology, which points out:
“AMR could turn back the clock a century on medicine”.
It is of course alarming to read in the action plan that AMR might already cause 700,000 deaths every year worldwide and that this could rise to 10 million by 2050, which is partly why I welcome how seriously the Government are taking this issue. The UK has been a world leader, from David Cameron taking the issue so seriously back in 2013 to the review from the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, in 2014 and the work of Dame Sally Davies, which we have mentioned, as well as useful scrutiny from both Houses of Parliament. Now at last we have the new action plan.
In my brief remarks I will focus on the action plan’s acknowledgement of the importance of vaccination’s preventative role and how we might better stimulate R&D into vaccines. While encouraging the development of new antibiotics is obviously sensible, as the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, recommended, the ILC report agreed with his other recommendations to develop new vaccines and use existing ones more effectively as a way of reducing dependency on antibiotics.
The World Health Organization has calculated that, if coverage of existing vaccines was increased, millions of days of antibiotic use could be prevented. For example, if flu vaccination rates increased, antibiotic use would surely reduce as the incidence of flu fell, as well as from a decline in secondary infections caused by flu, such as ear or sinus infections. In the ILC’s Jack Watters debate, Professor David Salisbury argued that there was “no debate” about whether more should be done to increase the coverage of a wider range of vaccines across the life course. I very much agree with that. I note that the O’Neill review calculated that vaccine programmes save society 10 times their original cost.
The list of potential new vaccines that Professor Salisbury hoped to see developed in coming years ranged from Alzheimer’s to respiratory syncytial virus, as well as more obvious ones such as norovirus and TB. As the British Society for Immunology has pointed out, vaccines are the most preventative health tool in human history. Like me, it also wants to see significant investment in novel vaccine research, in particular into bacterial infections such as pneumonia and sepsis—I am a member of the All-Party Group on Sepsis.
This is why I hope the Minister can reassure me that the action plan will help to create the right environment to incentivise the science community on vaccine development, which historically has a poor commercial return on such investment. I was struck by what the Society for Immunology said in its briefing: that less than 5% of pharma venture capital investment over the past 10 years went into AMR. I hope that research on vaccine development is not held back by the focus on developing an AMR of “last resort”, the return of which is uncertain, and for recognition that a co-ordinated cross-government approach across all relevant sectors is urgently required if this is to be achieved.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on securing this debate. My contribution will focus on just the farming aspect of the issue.
I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord that the whole point of this issue is that it is a one-health problem. One of the lessons is that we cannot divide human health from the health of the animals we eat. If animals are kept in a way that requires them to be dosed with antibiotics on a frequent and routine basis, then of course we should expect to affect human health as microbes learn to find ways around being killed.
The problem is very well exemplified in the pig industry, because when piglets are weaned very early, after say just 20 days as opposed to 40 plus days, they are likely to suffer from diarrhoea and lose natural resistance, so of course they are dosed. I praise the pig industry for making efforts to reduce the use of antimicrobials by about 50% in the last two years, which is a pretty big reduction. However, data from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate shows that in 2017, the last year I have data for, the UK pig sector still used about 130 milligrams of antimicrobials per kilogram of pig. Compared to our neighbours in Holland or Denmark, that is still very high. Why is it so high still? I am not sure; perhaps the Minister will know why. In the Dutch and Danish pig sectors, use of antimicrobials is less than half the UK’s use, at 53 milligrams per kilogram in the Netherlands and 46 milligrams per kilogram in Denmark. There is quite a big room for improvement. Moreover, reduction in the use of antimicrobials in the UK pig sector has in part been achieved by relying on extremely high use of zinc oxide in the feed. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether it is true, but I understand that there is a link between such zinc oxide use and the rise of MRSA.
Turning to chickens, broiler chickens in particular, ionophores are the antimicrobial compounds that specifically target bacterial populations in chicken production. Those of your Lordships who have been around a broiler chicken plant will have needed a strong stomach to do so since they are kept very intensively. Ionophores are routinely added to the feed of the most intensively farmed chickens to prevent the serious intestinal disease coccidiosis. No veterinary prescription is required. This disease occurs when chickens eat other chickens’ droppings, so intensive systems where tens of thousands of birds are kept permanently indoors in overcrowded conditions are likely to need to be dosed frequently.
One of the issues for the Government is that, if Brexit happens, they will be looking at with whom to make trade deals. The Government should consider the effect of making deals with people who are encouraging intensive farming when looking at agricultural trade deals and where our food will come from. I do not think that it is any coincidence that antimicrobial resistance is much higher in the USA when we look at how much of its food comes from intensive farming. The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe is concerned about the overuse of ionophores in poultry production and has called for the drugs to be made prescription-only. I wonder whether that is something that the Government are considering.
I am pleased that the Government have brought in their five-year action plan, but there is an issue that I would like to ask the Minister about this afternoon. The plan fails to give a clear commitment to carry over and incorporate into domestic UK legislation, should we leave the EU, the EU’s recently agreed legislation that bans routine preventive use of antimicrobials. I am particularly worried because a Question was posed in the House of Commons by Kerry McCarthy MP as to whether the Government will ban routine preventive use. The Answer was simply:
“Ministers have confirmed the Government’s intention to implement restrictions on the preventative use of antibiotics in line with new EU legislation”.
That does not sound like a ban to me. There will be a couple of problems with that. First, it will be in conflict with the new five-year plan. Secondly, if we try to export any food products to the EU, they will of course be unacceptable in EU terms. The Government need to come off the fence and say that they will entirely implement the ban as envisaged by the EU.
Finally, I turn to the remarks made at Portcullis House on 13 February by Professor Mark Woolhouse, who is the professor of infectious disease epidemiology at Edinburgh University. He makes the point that, in the context of this, an issue is that the UK Government’s emphasis on actions and research is still happening in silos when it comes to surveillance. The challenge is joining up the surveillance across the human, livestock and environmental sectors. Cross-sectorial transmission studies have been unsuccessful because they are not large enough in scale, and research access to routine surveillance data will be crucial for understanding the spread of AMR. Coming from such an expert, this is a very serious issue, and one that the Government need to address by supporting research that is bold and, as he says, mission orientated, and funding it sufficiently so as not to undermine their five-year action plan.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for this most necessary debate, which covers vital aspects of life and death. So much parliamentary energy and time has been spent on Brexit that a subject as important as antimicrobial resistance has not been as prominent as it should have been on the parliamentary agenda. However, I congratulate Professor Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer, for what she has done to help the UK become one of the world leaders in the subject. Antimicrobial resistance is a world dilemma. Governments across the globe should work together and treat this as an emergency problem which must be solved.
The World Bank has predicted that globally, AMR will lead to increases in morbidity and mortality, increase the burden on healthcare systems, increase extreme poverty and could inflict heavy losses on the global economy. The European Medicines Agency’s leaving London for Amsterdam does not give a good message to the world about our status in leadership, new medicines and safety. We will not have voting rights. We will be second-class members if we leave the EU.
I must declare an interest. I had sepsis last June, and know only too well the difficulties of combating infections. Sepsis needs quick diagnosis and antibiotics, but there is a problem getting the correct antibiotic for the appropriate infection. One needs accurate, rapid tests. After nearly a year, I am still battling an infection which persists in going up and down—even though I have the help of three hospitals and the advice of a cousin in Australia, who is a professor of microbiology. I mention this to illustrate how challenging these infections are, especially if they are resistant to treatment. During the year, I have witnessed the stress and pressure some hospital departments are under. The shortage of experienced staff and the difficulties of communication are of concern. There is no doubt that Brexit is not helping. Many much-needed nurses and doctors come from Europe. Many of our doctors and nurses go abroad, where the grass seems to be greener. One never knows what infection will emerge.
I would be grateful if the Minister could tell your Lordships what the Government recommend about Candida auris. The Sunday Times has said that:
“Eight patients in hospitals in Britain have died after becoming infected with Candida auris, the deadly Japanese super-fungus”.
The revelation by Public Health England illustrates the scale of the threat from the super-fungus, which emerged just 10 years ago in Japan, equipped with the fearsome biological armoury that lets it flourish in hospitals and resist most drugs and disinfectants. To date, the microbe has been found in at least 25 British hospitals. What seems to make Candida auris unique is that it spreads so easily from person to person. Once in the bloodstream, it circulates and multiplies, causing sepsis. I congratulate the UK Sepsis Trust for trying to make Parliament, hospitals, GPs, schools and the general public at large aware of sepsis.
With antimicrobial resistance, it is vital that we get new antibiotics. However, a disaster is unfolding in the antibiotics market. In the global struggle against superbugs, Achaogen is a biotech at the front line. Its failure is the latest symptom of an ailing antibiotic market. Its antibiotic, plazomicin, was, in 2018, approved by the UK food and drugs administration for treating complex urinary tract infections caused by drug-resistant bacteria. It is a vitally needed drug, and just one of many new antibiotics we need to replace drugs that are rapidly losing their effectiveness against superbugs. Its loss, for lack of funding, is a tragedy. This was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I think it is worth mentioning again.
On a more hopeful note, Carb-X, a global partnership dedicated to accelerating research to tackle the global rising threat of drug-resistant bacteria, with up to £550 million to invest, is said to fund the best science around the world. Its portfolio is the world’s largest development pipeline of new antibiotics, vaccines, rapid diagnosis and other projects to prevent and treat life-threatening bacterial infections. It is encouraging that the UK, the USA and Germany, and several trusts and foundations, are working together. The headquarters are at Boston University. I hope they have great success in helping to protect humanity from the most serious bacterial threat before us. We need better preventive measures as well as alternative treatments, including innovative ways to use the body’s own immune system and healthy bacteria.
I am trying a new treatment for wounds—Acapsil. It is micropore particle technology, a white powder applied to the wound surface. It consists of small particles composed of a network of very fine pores. It removes the toxins, and enzymes are excreted by the wound surface. It does not kill the micro-organisms. It is hoped that it is effective on antimicrobial-resistant infections. Another exciting discovery is that golden kelp, the common seaweed from the rocky shores of Mindelo in northern Portugal, has been found to contain microbes that could bolster the war on superbugs.
I would like to ask three questions. First, what are the Government doing to speed up detection of AMR throughout the NHS? Secondly, do the Government recognise the value of accurate antimicrobial susceptibility testing in safeguarding the remaining effective antibiotics, while accurately monitoring the newly emerging AMR and screening potential new antibiotics? Thirdly, are they aware that the Central Public Health Laboratory in Colindale is involved in an international consortium that has developed a rapid antimicrobial susceptibility test, but that in over two years it has received no direct funding to establish that test capability here?
I have a farm and pony stud. I support vets by saying that they should have the right to prescribe and dispense veterinary medicines, including antimicrobials, according to their responsible clinical judgments. The welfare of animals, as well as humans, must be paramount.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and congratulate him on securing this debate on the incredibly important topic of addressing AMR. It is absolutely essential to see AMR as the economic and security threat that it is.
I will talk first about animal husbandry. The Government must make a clear commitment that any future trade deals will require any meat and dairy produce imported into the UK to meet at least the same standards relating to antibiotic use that apply to meat and dairy products produced in the EU, because over 40% of the UK’s total antibiotic use is in animals.
Contamination can occur from animal waste, human waste, pharmaceutical manufacturing and the use of antimicrobial pesticides on crops. There is no doubt that more funding is needed on AMR to kick-start early research into new antimicrobials and diagnostics. We must conduct in-depth research to better understand the impact of AMR pesticide exposure on humans, animals and the surrounding environment, and identify and promote best management practices to minimise exposure when applying antimicrobials as pesticides. There should also be more global transparency over antimicrobial use on pesticides, by collecting and sharing information on the amount and types used on crops each year. Sharing knowledge is so important.
We now see antibiotics reaching the environment in many ways, such as through sewage run-off and the run-off from food producing units such as farms. In particular, there is the impact of effluent from factories on our nearby water systems. Action is needed, too, so that regulators can set at least minimum standards for the treatment and release of manufacturing waste, and drive much higher standards through supply chains. It is vital that we have better commercial return on R&D; it is little wonder that firms are not investing in antibiotics, despite the very high medical needs. We need new ways to reward and enhance innovation.
What matters now is that action should support reducing the unnecessary use of antimicrobials and, I emphasise, revive investment in their development. Rapidly growing global demand for antibiotics is necessary to improve access to life-saving medicines, along with economic development. But all too often it reflects excessive and unnecessary use, rather than genuine medical need, so by reducing unnecessary consumption we can have a powerful impact on resistance. Educators, farmers, the veterinary and medical communities and professional organisations need to pledge to make better use of antibiotics and help save vital medicines from becoming obsolete.
The rise and spread of antimicrobial resistance is, as we have heard this afternoon, creating a new and potentially dangerous generation of superbugs. The UK needs to help ensure that AMR remains a global priority by continuing to lead international policy. As we have been informed, by 2050 it is estimated that AMR will kill 10 million people per year—more than cancer and diabetes combined. That is the scale of the threat that we face. The ambition for AMR is, by 2040, to have new diagnostics, therapies, vaccines and interventions in use, together with a full AMR research and development pipeline for antimicrobial alternatives, along with diagnostics, vaccines and infection prevention across all sectors.
Government and other funders must act to ensure that the market can offer sufficient commercial incentive to keep pharmaceutical companies active in this space. They should conduct studies to evaluate the effectiveness of existing wastewater treatment processing in the removal from it of antimicrobials before its discharge into environmental waters, and investigate and identify the factors that result in treatment inefficiencies and failures in processing methods, or the infrastructure failures. Studies have found APIs in rivers, treated and untreated manufacturing wastewater, and sediment downstream of industrial wastewater treatment plants.
We have evidence, too, of the clear priorities that will support greater progress in addressing antimicrobial-resistant microbes in the environment. As I mentioned earlier, high-risk areas, such as the disposal of waste from healthcare facilities and manufacturing, could be prioritised and addressed at local and global levels to reduce the potential risks to human health posed by having those microbes in the environment. Unfortunately, we have not seen a new class of antibiotics for decades, because an overuse of antimicrobials has increased the rate at which resistance is developing and spreading. Again, we lack the new drugs to challenge these new superbugs. Governments and other funders must act to ensure the antimicrobial market can offer sufficient commercial incentives to keep pharmaceutical companies active in this space. Where testing is clinically appropriate and recommended by NICE, action should be taken to address the perverse financial incentives that may discourage use. I emphasise that we must work in collaboration to improve national and international understanding. We have a major global challenge ahead of us.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for securing this debate. Like him, I commend the new national action plan on tackling antimicrobial resistance. There is no doubt that antimicrobial resistance—that is resistance to microbes—is a major global challenge. The O’Neill commission’s final report in 2016 warned that, if unchecked, by 2050 AMR could lead to 10 million deaths and a $100 million cost to the economy globally. That has been referred to earlier. There is no question that antimicrobial resistance is a truly major issue.
These figures are frequently used in the introduction to discussion of antibiotic resistance. That is the resistance of bacteria to particular drugs. I emphasise, perhaps needlessly, that while all bacteria are microbes, not all microbes are bacteria. This is significant when considering drugs, which are often specific. As a veterinary scientist and in the context of the involvement of animals in this issue, I will focus on antibiotic resistance. I declare my interests as a long-standing member of the BVA and a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
The first point is that the AMR figures that headline my contribution, quoted in the O’Neill report, include the consequences of drug resistance in malaria and in viruses, notably HIV and the human tubercle bacillus. These are undoubtedly major causes of mortality in humans globally, but in none of them is there a connection to drug use in animals. I make this point not to diminish the problem of AMR, nor that of antibiotic resistance, but it is important when addressing this problem to accurately distinguish its component parts in order to rationally tackle it.
Having clarified that, and excluding the above three infections, the resistance of some bacteria to antibiotics is still a substantial problem in human medicine. While it is generally accepted that this is primarily a result of the use of antibiotics in humans, there is undoubtedly some connection to the use of antibiotics in animals. These situations particularly involve food-borne infections transmissible between humans and animals, such as E. coli, campylobacter—which is the biggest cause of food poisoning in the UK, usually non-fatal but debilitating—and salmonella. They also involve some other directly transmissible infections, to which those who work with or keep animals may be particularly exposed, such as MRSA.
There is still much uncertainty, in many of these situations, about the extent of the flow of resistant bacteria between animals and humans, and indeed the environment, and its direction—because we must remember this is bidirectional. We badly need more research on this, but molecular typing methods are increasingly helping to elucidate these questions. There have been some important results recently from several groups using molecular characterisation, which have shown that bacterial populations of E. coli and salmonella in animals and humans may remain more distinct than hitherto suspected.
Notwithstanding this, the veterinary profession and livestock industries have taken the issue of antibiotic resistance very seriously, and have made huge progress in reducing or restricting antibiotic usage in animals—I am talking about Europe and the UK particularly—to safeguard human health, while maintaining animal health and welfare, and livestock productivity. There has been a concerted effort by animal industry bodies—particularly in fish farming, but also the poultry and pig industries, to be fair to them—and the British Veterinary Association, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, the British Equine Veterinary Association, the Responsible Use of Medicines Agriculture Alliance and the National Office of Animal Health. These bodies have variously produced literature, information, posters, training courses and toolkits, and have set voluntary targets and restrictions.
This has all been strongly supported and monitored by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which introduced guidance some time ago in its Code of Professional Conduct requiring veterinary surgeons to be responsible in their use of medicines and antibiotics. For the avoidance of doubt, I make it clear that the use of antibiotics in animals for growth promotion has been banned in Europe since 2006, and antibiotics are available only by prescription from a veterinary surgeon for animals under their care.
The remarkable progress in reducing and restricting antibiotic use in the UK is documented by the latest UK One Health Report, published in January this year. This shows that, between 2013 and 2017, there was a 40% reduction in the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals, achieving below the 2018 target advocated by the O’Neill commission report. This translates to a reduction of antibiotics in animal use to 282 tonnes, and of so-called high-priority critically important antibiotics, as defined for human use, to 2.2 tonnes. In the same year, 2017, the corresponding figures in humans were 491 tonnes for all antibiotics and 17.1 tonnes for critically important antibiotics.
But we must not be complacent. Further voluntary targets were agreed in 2017 for reducing antibiotic use in eight key livestock sectors. Those targets variously include reduced use, particularly of high-priority critically important antibiotics; improved monitoring and data collection; and knowledge-exchange initiatives.
As has previously been said, the issue of antibiotic resistance is global. While good progress is being made in the UK, there is still uncontrolled use of antibiotics in both humans and animals in many countries. In an age of globalisation, the global movement of humans, who carry millions of bacteria with them every time they go anywhere, as well as of animal products, will continue to introduce antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains into the UK no matter what we do here, as was stressed by the O’Neill report. United, coherent global action is required and the UK has been a strong leader in that respect. The importation of resistant bacteria is of particular concern post-Brexit. Like several speakers in today’s debate, the BVA and others have called for rigorous standards requiring the responsible use of antimicrobials on farms to be incorporated into future trade deals, with certain conditions put in about minimal antibiotic usage. This is a particular issue with regard to the US, for example, to which the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, alluded. I assure him that I do not defend the scale or purposes of antibiotic use in animals that we see in the US. Can the Minister assure the House that the threat of importing antibiotic-resistant bacteria on meat products will be carefully considered in negotiating future trade deals?
The new UK five-year action plan sets out ambitious measures nationally and internationally in both human and animal usage to tackle AMR. In animals, a target is set to reduce antibiotic use by 25% between 2016 and 2020, with new objectives set beyond that for the next five years. In the longer term, and in addition to the reduction and restriction of antibiotic use, it is essential that we seek better ways of dealing with bacterial infections to avoid drug use, such as improved hygiene, biosecurity and other measures, particularly the development of vaccines—that has been mentioned, so I shall not emphasise it further. Vaccines against endemic disease are particularly needed. The Government are to be congratulated on mentioning the importance of endemic diseases in their Health and Harmony policy statement in 2018.
Will Her Majesty’s Government consider making available financial support under the public money for public goods agenda that we see in the Health and Harmony document and in the coming Agriculture Bill for measures that will reduce the development and spread of antibiotic resistance?
I, too, pay tribute to the efforts of the Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies, and the O’Neill commission, which have been hugely important in galvanising national and international attention on this subject.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for giving us the opportunity to talk about antimicrobial resistance, because, as we have heard, it is one of the world’s most difficult and dangerous health challenges. It could put back the clock and make many of the treatments which we take for granted, such as the surgery undergone by the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, far too risky in future.
It is not often that you read a book by an eminent doctor whose findings not only scare you but had obviously scared them too. However, that is what I found when I recently read the book about AMR by the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies. Near the beginning of the book she says that the findings of the group of experts she brought together were simple: first, we are losing the battle against infectious diseases; secondly, bacteria are fighting back and becoming resistant to modern medicine; and, thirdly, in short, the drugs no longer work. She admitted to feeling rattled about that, and so am I. Therefore, I congratulate the Government on the latest iteration of their comprehensive plan to tackle AMR, and welcome the fact that the plan outlines actions to control AMR both within and beyond our borders. I also welcome the fact that the plan for the next five years has brought the four nations of the UK together, unlike the previous version.
One principle of the plan is reducing the need for using antimicrobials to limit the opportunity for microorganisms to evolve resistance to them. I will mention three ways of reducing the need for these medicines: immunising the population against the diseases that might require such treatment; tackling the spread of infection; strengthening the natural immunity of patients and supporting their general health so that they can fight off infections themselves.
Vaccines are of course the most effective preventive health tool in human history, and have been able to eradicate entire diseases such as smallpox. As the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, mentioned, expanding the use of existing vaccines would have a major impact. For example, universal coverage of children by the pneumococcal vaccine would avert 11.4 million days of antibiotic use in children under five each year. However, we also need new vaccines, but no new class of vaccines has been discovered in decades.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was absolutely right to focus on money. There are major financial barriers in the way of developing new antimicrobials. It is now five years since the Health and Social Care Committee in another place urged,
“tangible and rapid progress in this area within six months”.
However, as the House has heard, in the last few years, since discussions have been ongoing between the industry and the Government about the deterrent effect of the current funding model, three multinational pharmaceutical companies have left the market. Significant government investment is also needed in novel vaccine research, to tackle an increasingly urgent global problem.
Although the UK cannot rescue the situation alone, the unique nature of the NHS gives us the opportunity to demonstrate a new funding model that could work for both of these groups of pharmaceuticals and set an example to other countries. I was therefore pleased to see that the Government and the industry have agreed a new funding model for antimicrobial development and supply that will provide more stable income to the companies, while providing the NHS with novel antimicrobials which can be held in reserve by doctors for use when older, cheaper medicines no longer work because resistance to them has been developed. I understand that the new model will delink the payments made to companies from the volumes of antibiotics sold, basing the payment instead on a NICE-led assessment of the value of the medicines and supporting good stewardship.
When will the Minister be able to report on the timeline for the full implementation of this pilot scheme and how will the Government assess whether it has been a success? Will the new model also be used to fund the development of new vaccines, many of which are badly needed in countries that cannot afford to develop them themselves but which are often the source of infection outbreaks in this country?
Infections are spread around the population by many means, via water, food, air droplets and poor sanitation, and we are fortunate in this country on most of those issues. However, what should be most easily prevented are those infections acquired in healthcare settings. This is particularly dangerous because patients are at their most vulnerable and may have compromised immune systems. Healthcare-acquired infections are among the most serious modern public health problems worldwide and many are caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria, so effective HAI management is vital to slowing the AMR crisis. It is therefore critical that the NHS puts in place system-wide processes, such as screening and surveillance programmes, and the highest possible level of hospital hygiene and sterile practice that can help tackle HAIs and reduce their incidence. The Government must also maintain their focus on HAIs to ensure that infection rates, which have been falling, do not start to rise again. Unfortunately, they have now plateaued.
Across the NHS, there is regional variation in hospital-acquired infection rates. According to freedom of information data, almost two-thirds of hospitals do not offer point-of-care testing, a tool that could help provide real-time information on patients for a range of infections. Only eight out of 50 trusts routinely carry out point-of-care testing for infections such as flu, and less than 10% of trusts test for a full range of infections, such as MRSA and others. Some trusts consistently appear among the best, and some consistently among the worst, for reported cases. Of course, one has to ask whether these trusts have better or worse reporting mechanisms, or whether they have more or fewer cases to deal with. But whatever the answer, can the Government assure me that the focus is still on getting these figures down? Personally, I would be very reluctant to go into a hospital with a poor record on this.
Optimising use—for which read “reducing unnecessary prescribing”—requires both public and medical education. Patients need to know that it is sometimes for their own benefit when their doctor tells them they do not need antibiotics but advises them instead to go home, rest and take plenty of fluids, and not to go to work or school and spread it around. On a system-wide basis we need to be able to report on the percentage of prescriptions supported by either a diagnostic test or a decision support tool. There is a target for this in the plan. Will the Minister say whether there are online learning packages and easily available diagnostic tools, so that GPs can be supported to make the optimum decisions about prescribing?
We should not ignore the potential of strengthening patients’ own ability to fight off infection without the use of antimicrobials. Malnutrition can reduce the body’s own defences, and it is a disgraceful fact that there is malnutrition among the poorer sections of the UK population today, particularly among children and older people. I have even heard of malnutrition among long-term hospital patients because of the poor quantity and/or quality of hospital food, or the fact that no attempt is made to ensure that the patient eats it. This factor cannot be ignored when considering how we can reduce the spread of disease. Will the Minister say what action is being taken to tackle malnutrition?
Another aspect of boosting natural immunity—mentioned, I think, by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham —is the role of microbiome; that is the 39 trillion microorganisms that occupy our bodies. Of course, some can be harmful, but the majority contribute to health. There is some evidence that a healthy, varied gut microbiota can have a beneficial effect on our immune system. Specific bacteria in the gut have been associated with immune development, and we know that germ-free mice have less well developed immune cells. Altered populations of bacteria are associated with a host of diseases, from allergy, asthma, autoimmunity and neurodegenerative diseases to obesity. However, we probably still do not fully understand which specific bacteria are important for health. A better understanding of the community of bacteria that affect our health is needed. This is a promising area of research, so will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are investing in research into the contribution the microbiome can make, particularly to immunity against infectious diseases?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate and revealed again the depth and breadth of the knowledge and passion your Lordships’ House has on this issue. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for initiating the debate and the Library and many other organisations for their helpful briefings. I feel I should declare that I am a member of a CCG. I say that because it is rare to see a subject that is the victim of as many acronyms as the NHS, but this field certainly challenges that, combining as it does health, farming and the environment, the research and science communities, pharma businesses and international organisations. I was very grateful for the list of acronyms at the front of the Government’s five-year paper.
As noble Lords have said, we know that AMR currently results in 700,000 deaths globally every year, that by 2050 that could be 10 million, and that it threatens to turn back the clock on a century of medicine, rendering modern surgery, organ transplantation and chemotherapy too dangerous to use. Preventive treatment is needed, as the report says, to curb the spread of bacterial diseases requiring antibiotics. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, vaccines are the most effective preventive health tool in human history. We therefore need to expand the use of existing vaccines to have a better impact.
One of the most serious issues in the fight against AMR, which almost every noble Lord mentioned, is that no new class of antibiotics has been introduced for more than 30 years. Antibiotics are quite unlike any other category of drug, because every dose of antibiotics poses the risk of encouraging bacteria to adapt and develop resistance. That was illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in her description of the fight she has been having, which we have discussed on several occasions over the past year.
The Government’s five-year action plan is indeed an impressive document and a step along the road. I join the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in saying that we may not be moving as quickly as we should. That has been echoed across the Chamber. Of course, it is not the complete solution, and serious questions have been asked in the debate. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, in saying that the plan is disappointing in that it fails to give a clear commitment to incorporate into domestic law the European Union’s recently agreed legislation that bans routine preventive use of antimicrobials. It is a pertinent question at this point. Article 107.1 provides:
“Antimicrobial medicinal products shall not be applied routinely nor used to compensate for poor hygiene, inadequate animal husbandry or lack of care or to compensate for poor farm management”.
That is not being incorporated into UK law, as far as we can tell. I agree with the noble Baroness that the answers given to questions in the Commons were ambiguous, to put it mildly. Perhaps the Minister could take this opportunity to clarify the issue.
When I discussed the five-year plan with my noble friend Lord Winston, who regrets that he cannot join us this afternoon, he said two things to me. The first was that meeting this challenge will be well-nigh impossible given the dearth of lab, technical and science staff in the NHS at this moment. Secondly, he said that investment in research needs to be much greater and the follow-through more effective. My noble friend would have put those points more eloquently and, probably, more forcefully than I have, but neither of those issues is new; they have been articulated in your Lordships’ House over a long period.
Part of the NHS long-term plan talks about the delivery of the five-year plan we are discussing today. Will the staffing review address technical staff, of which there is a terrible shortage? They are essential for the delivery of both the NHS long-term plan and this plan. We know that the issue of research is not just about funding to deliver ground-breaking research. The UK does a great job in training PhD students, but loses a lot of talented people because the post-doctoral period is so unstable. We need continued support for interdisciplinary networks to strengthen research and develop capacity. Does the strategy address that issue as robustly as the emergency that we are facing requires?
Many noble Lords mentioned market failure, which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, dwelled on in his opening remarks. According to Professor Dame Sally Davies, the reason for that is in part that the easy wins have been made and there is now a fundamental failure of the market for new antibiotics. Given the growing threat of AMR and the need to conserve and use current and future antibiotics carefully to preserve their effectiveness for as long as possible, it is clear that pharmaceutical companies are aware that any new antibiotic they bring to market will be prescribed only very sparingly rather than as a first-line treatment during its patent life, thereby reducing its profitability. I found that idea very dispiriting because it seems that we must address market failure. The report of the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, also recognised and addressed this issue.
That is even more discouraging when one realises that, over the past five years, we have seen pharmaceutical companies withdraw further and further from the development of antibiotics. In June last year, the latest company, Novartis, exited the market, bringing the total number of companies involved in antimicrobial drug development to six. The issues of market failure and disinvestment are incredibly important; therefore, the Government’s scheme to delink the price paid for antimicrobials from the volume sold is also crucial.
Even more depressingly, Professor Dame Sally Davies argued that the industry needed to step up and act in a socially responsible way, pointing out that tackling AMR was also in its interest. In her evidence to the Commons Select Committee, whose report I found extremely useful, she said:
“I am disappointed by the number of them”—
pharmaceutical companies—
“who have said quietly over a drink, ‘Well, Sally, we know you’re going to solve this. The Government will have to pay, so we’re waiting until you pay’”.
Where is the social responsibility? What terrible short-sightedness. To go back to the point about losing modern medicine, what is the point of developing the world’s greatest cancer portfolio if there are no antibiotics to rescue the patients? Yet industry expects us in government and the public sector to fund this, or that it will happen through somebody else being corporately responsible.
This market failure might lead to catastrophic consequences, as referred to on pages 74 and 76 of the five-year plan. It rightly states:
“The UK cannot solve such market failures alone”.
I question that because I should not like to think that the idea that we cannot solve this alone because we are 3% of the world market means that we do not try to do things in this country to turn this round. Our NHS has huge purchasing power: it pays billions of pounds to pharma, which makes billions in profit from these sales, for the drugs and treatments we need. We must have some leverage here. I ask the Minister: if a UK university or small pharma company found a new antibiotic, surely our Government would find a way to make sure that it was developed and brought to market. They would not wait for this to happen on the world stage, would they? I really want to hear that we will not have a repeat in the UK of the situation described in the MRC report, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I received that report; the story of Achaogen was a graphic one of market failure in developing a new antibiotic. However, the noble Lord did not ask something that I wish to ask: what will happen to that drug? Achaogen developed a drug that can treat the most serious superbugs; therefore, it is not much needed so the company did not make enough money and went bankrupt. Where has that drug gone? What has happened to it? That is an important question.
Lord Lansley
As I understand it, the company is up for sale so, effectively, people would buy the patent and the drug.
Baroness Thornton
Let us hope that the people who buy it are public-spirited enough to know that they need to develop it and that that can be done. That puzzled me when I read the fascinating article, which I recommend to noble Lords. I thought, “A new antibiotic is out there and it is not available to us, for goodness’ sake”.
I congratulate the Government on the five-year plan. It is important, however, that the impetus behind it works, that the incentivisation schemes unlock investment in AMR, that we do not face the same issues being faced in America, and that implementation of the plan is speeded up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for securing a very important debate which has been filled with expertise and wisdom from all sides. I am grateful to him for saying that, if he could, he would have chosen to make this a “take note with approval” debate, which is not always the case when debating a government strategy.
My noble friend is right that antimicrobial resistance is one of the most pressing global challenges that we face in this century. Unchecked AMR threatens the achievement of many of the sustainable development goals, including those affecting health, food security, trade and labour supply. The World Bank estimates that an additional 28 million people could be forced into extreme poverty by 2050 through shortfalls in economic output unless resistance is contained.
In recognition of the threat of AMR, we published the strategy in 2013 and, as my noble friend has rightly said, we can count many significant achievements over the five years since. I pay tribute to him for the role he played in developing it before he moved on. We have seen unprecedented levels of research investment and collaboration, with £350 million having been invested since 2014. We have also reduced antibiotic use in humans by 7.3%, as he noted, and as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who is an expert in this area, rightly pointed out, sales of antibiotics for use in animals have reduced by 40%. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said that this is of value only alongside the development of comprehensive surveillance systems, which we have also been putting in place.
Finally, resources and campaigns have been delivered for front-line staff. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady Walmsley, said, they have an essential role to play in changing the culture and communicating with the public. I would like to point to a particular tool which has been developed, known as “Treat Antibiotics Responsibly Guidance, Education and Tools”. It turns into a fantastic acronym—TARGET—which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will like. It is a toolkit of evidence-based resources to help clinicians and commissioners in England to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Some 99% of CCGs promote this to their GP practices. I hope that responds to the question raised by the noble Baroness.
However, we must be up front about the scale of the challenge that AMR presents here at home, let alone in developing countries. As has been noted in the debate, resistance continues to increase. Between 2013 and 2017, we saw a 35% increase in resistant infections in humans here in the UK. Just as my noble friend says, this is a dynamic problem that requires a dynamic response. However, I would like to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on her questions about Candida auris. It can establish itself within the hospital environment and be difficult to control, but currently the NHS has no persistent outbreaks. It is an uncommon fungus in the UK and our surveillance shows a low risk to patients in healthcare settings. No multi-drug resistant strains have been identified and there have been no deaths in NHS hospitals.
In order to respond to the dynamic challenge we face, the Government have recognised that no single five-year plan could deal with it, so we have set out our vision for a world in which AMR is contained and controlled by 2040 and we will continue to play our part in tackling the global problem of AMR by modelling best practice at home. Further, by supporting progress internationally through strong action to prevent infection generally, we will contain the emergence and spread of resistance. Alongside this vision we have published a five-year AMR national action plan which sets challenging five-year ambitions that will begin to fulfil the vision.
I would like to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on the question she raised regarding the workforce. Unlike the NHS Five Year Forward View, the NHS Long Term Plan commits to implementing the AMR national action plan which sets out to assess current and future workforce needs for strong infection prevention and control as well as antimicrobial stewardship. This should ensure that we develop the correct workforce targets. This is reassuring in terms of hoping we can achieve the priorities we have set out in the plan.
Our new plan includes a strengthened focus on infection prevention and control, renewing our commitment to halve levels of healthcare-associated Gram-negative bloodstream infections by 2023-24. It includes a world-first target to reduce the actual numbers of resistant infections, with an aim to reduce them by 10% by 2025. We will go further on our previous ambition to reduce antimicrobial prescribing, reducing it by a further 15% by 2024, strengthening stewardship programmes and raising public awareness, while ensuring rapid and timely treatment with antibiotics where it is essential to save lives. Through greater interoperability of data, we will develop real-time, patient-level prescribing and resistance data to inform antibiotic treatment, optimise life-saving treatments for serious infections and help develop new interventions to reduce AMR.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Walmsley, are absolutely right that better use of diagnostic testing is essential. However, we found many challenges in this area over the last five-year period with the previous plan. We believe that, through data linkage work, by 2024 we will know which diagnostic tools and tests have been used in support of every prescription for antibiotics and will be able to target improvement. There is also further research work going on, which I will come back to.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, raised the important issue of vaccines for humans and animals, which play a key role in tackling AMR. One of the nine ambitions for change set out in our 2040 vision is to minimise infections in humans and animals. Optimising the use of effective vaccines will be critical in achieving this ambition. The national action plan includes commitments to stimulate more research into and promote broader access to vaccines. One of the ways in which we are doing this and supporting the development of the uptake of vaccines in lower and middle-income countries is through the Global AMR Innovation Fund and the UK vaccine network, as well as through our significant contributions to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and, more recently, through CEPI, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations—which, we understand, is having a significant impact on the pipeline.
My noble friend Lord Crathorne raised the question of the use of antibiotics as growth promoters. He was rather put right by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, but I will just repeat for the sake of certainty that since 2006 antibiotics for use as growth promoters have been banned in the UK and Europe, and they will continue to be.
This brings me on to a point raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Thornton, and a point of clarification on the response to Kerry McCarthy. The Government have confirmed their intention to implement their restrictions on the preventative use of antibiotics in line with EU legislation, but this will require a consultation with all interested stakeholders following the usual processes when amending domestic legislation. I hope that is a reassuring clarification. If noble Lords would like to follow up in writing, I shall be happy to respond on that.
I will respond to a follow-up point that also came from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, regarding trade agreements and AMR. I assure the House that any future trade agreements must work for consumers, farmers and businesses in the UK, and we will not water down our standards on food safety, animal welfare or environmental protection as part of any future trade deal. I hope that is a reassuring response.
I hope the noble Lord will forgive me, but following the debate I shall raise his point regarding AMR funding associated with the Agriculture Bill with the Minister and return to him.
I will now move on to the question regarding research and treatment development. Building on our research co-ordination and collaboration, we must continue to invest in research and to support the development of new, alternative treatments, vaccines and diagnostics. As noted by noble Lords from across the House, this is clearly essential if we are to make progress on the aims we have set out in what is rightly an ambitious plan.
Significantly, as my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Crathorne point out, the plan includes a commitment to lead the way in testing solutions that address the failure of companies to invest in the development of new antimicrobials. We are the first country in the world to announce that we will test new models that pay companies for antibiotics based primarily on a health technology assessment of their value to the NHS as opposed to the volumes that are used. This is an exciting and important step and we must fight hard to push it forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about timelines. NICE and NHS England are leading on this complex work and a core team of experts and specialists are already in place. There is no delay in pushing forward this work. We anticipate it will take 18 months to two years to complete. The current NICE appraisal processes take about 49 to 60 weeks but this project requires a bespoke process to deal with the complexity of considering the full dimensions and value for antimicrobials. I look forward to reporting back to the House as the project continues.
We are sharing our learning with other countries and encouraging them to do the same or similar. I hope that we can push for this to be raised in international fora, as it is only when these kinds of pilots happen on a global scale that we can hope to see real progress. We hope that the data generated from this work will help other countries to think about how they value these precious drugs and how we can work with the industry to overcome market failure.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of a global fund. We have made some initial progress with the Global AMR Innovation Fund, GAMRIF, which has been set up. We are pushing at every opportunity to improve collaboration and to get support for it. However, it is a challenging picture and I hope to be able to report more progress in coming months.
On co-ordination, the national action plan was co-developed across government departments, agencies, the health family and the devolved Administrations, with an input from a wide range of stakeholders. We intend to continue in that vein as it is the only way in which we will make effective progress. The UK has played a lead role in strengthening international co-operation to tackle AMR, not least in securing the UN declaration at the General Assembly in 2016.
I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, for his ground-breaking early work and expertise in this area. I join others around the House who have paid tribute and expressed gratitude to Dame Sally Davies in advance of October. She has been a driving force on the global stage on this agenda. I have no doubt that, whatever happens in the autumn, her leadership will continue from Cambridge and beyond. It will be of tremendous value to the United Kingdom and everywhere else that she goes.
Whether it is getting it right with new antimicrobials and getting them through the pipeline or it is supporting the development and testing of rapid point-of-care diagnostics, the Government are clear that we want to improve the whole system. I am pleased to update the House: today I announced a new and expanded accelerated access collaborative to serve as an umbrella organisation for UK health and innovation. The new AAC will work with patients and the system to pull through the best and most cost-effective innovations, to get them to clinicians and patients faster than ever before. This includes the use of digital tools and health tech alongside the best new medicines. From new diagnostic tools to better identify people who need treatment, to improved ways of monitoring usage to ensure that patients complete treatment courses, together these innovations will help to address the growing threat of AMR.
I hope that with this information I have covered the points raised by noble Lords today. We can be proud of the work that we have done in the UK to secure AMR on the global agenda, not only as a health issue but as a “one health” issue with an enormous social and economic impact. We have invested to turn declarations into concrete actions and to support countries to develop their capacity to tackle AMR, improve global surveillance and undertake vital research and development. Through this plan we are setting out our challenge to ourselves and to other countries to continue life-preserving work to preserve antimicrobials for future generations.
In closing, I do not think that I can do better than to follow my noble friend in quoting from the IACG report to the Secretary-General:
“The challenges of AMR are complex … but they are not insurmountable”.
We should take courage from this, but should remember that our success will depend on the urgency with which we drive forward this response and the continued success in securing international collaboration. I believe that together we can achieve that.
Lord Lansley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her excellent response to a really good debate. I am very grateful. I said at the outset that I hoped that the debate would bring forward a range of expert views relating to the “one health” concept, and it did exactly that. I am most grateful to all those who contributed to enable that to happen. The debate demonstrated the complex and multifaceted character of the problem. I share the Minister’s hope that it is indeed surmountable.
I shall say just a couple of things. First, on growth promotion and trade, the issue is that only now are some countries beginning to recognise that they have to stop antibiotic use in growth promotion and its widespread prophylactic use in animals. That happened in Europe in 2006, but it happened in 2017 in America for growth promotion and only now are the Indian Government bringing forward proposals in this respect. There is an international aspect that we need to work on.
My final point is that I entirely understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said. The point of the national action plan is to be the best in the world—the best in class—and to demonstrate what can be achieved. If we can achieve those targets, it will be fantastic, but it has to happen elsewhere. Not only turning a national action plan into its equivalent in other countries but creating international global action, which was the burden of my contribution, will be central to a more effective response overall, which we all want.
Motion agreed.