House of Commons

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 2 July 2019

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

1. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the adequacy of social security spending in tackling poverty throughout the UK.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)]

Thanks to our welfare reforms, we have been able to get more people into work, we have the lowest unemployment rate since 1974 and more than 667,000 fewer children are living in workless households than in 2010.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Some £30 billion of support to working-age people has been cut from the social security budget, and there is more still to come. Eight out of nine disabled people will not benefit from the measures introduced in last autumn’s Budget and over 4 million are living in poverty. In the Chancellor’s last few weeks in post, what will he do to right this wrong?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s analysis. The fact is that income inequality is lower now than it was in 2010 and absolute poverty after housing costs is at a historic low for children.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Can the Chief Secretary confirm that the number of children living in workless households is now the lowest ever record achieved in our country?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is because of our welfare reforms and economic policy that more people are now in work and are benefiting from our cuts to basic rate tax, giving working families £1,200 a year extra in their pay packets.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

The Chancellor has been brave recently, speaking out on how no deal will impact our economy. Poverty will only get worse if we face no deal, so will the Chief Secretary be as brave as the Chancellor and tell this House the truth about poverty and no deal?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can tell the hon. Lady what would lead to greater poverty in this country: a Government who wanted to overthrow capitalism, declare business the enemy and ruin the private sector businesses that are employing people and giving them extra wages.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The Chancellor has been at the forefront of arguing that a decade of austerity was necessary. This has led to 24% of Scottish children and 30% of English children being in poverty. If the Chancellor believes that this pain was not ideological and unnecessary, will he vote against a Tory tax cuts for the rich Budget, as proposed by the Prime Minister’s most likely successor?

[Elizabeth Truss]

With respect to the hon. Lady, she clearly did not hear my earlier answer, when I said that absolute poverty after housing costs is at a historic low for children. That is true right across our country. Of course, the Scottish National party Government in Scotland could take steps to help children by improving educational standards; that is what they should be focusing on.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Minister might not want to tackle inequality, but the Scottish Government do. The polls show that a majority of Scottish people support the tax changes that mean the Scottish Government can fund a £10 a week payment to families with the most vulnerable children, mitigating the ideological austerity obsession of this Conservative Government. If the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) becomes Prime Minister, 53% of Scots will support independence. And who can blame them, given the Scottish Government’s plans to support and help young people, and this Government’s ideological austerity obsession?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The reality is that the Scottish Government are now forecast to bring in lower rates of income tax than expected, because they have not followed through on our raising of the threshold to £50,000, so people in Scotland on £50,000 are now paying £1,500 more tax. The fact is that raising tax reduces incentives for people to get up the earnings ladder, reduces economic growth and means that we do not have the opportunities and funding for public services.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Change UK)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) said, the poorest, most vulnerable people in society, even those who are in work but struggling to make ends meet, will be hit particularly hard by a catastrophic no-deal Brexit. The Minister cannot get away with simply deflecting this into an attack, which I would share, on the economic policies of the Labour party. This is the clearest, most present danger facing our country, and surely she will not happily move towards a no-deal Brexit.

[Elizabeth Truss]

What the hon. Gentleman is missing is the fact that if we continue to delay Brexit, first, we would not be delivering on what British people voted for over three years ago; and secondly, there will be continued delay in our economy—a continued lack of investment—due to a lack of certainty.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Chancellor slapped down both Tory leadership candidates for making irresponsible spending promises. Has the Minister noticed, as we have, that not one of those promises was aimed at lifting the 4 million children out of poverty? She is responsible for the management of Government finances—heaven help us! What does she think this says about the Tory party and the next Prime Minister?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am incredibly proud of our record, as a Government, of reducing inequality. Income inequality is now lower than it was in 2010. We have also cut taxes for basic rate taxpayers by £1,200 a year and put an extra £630 into universal credit for working families.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

2. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland on the economic effect on Scotland of the UK leaving the EU.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)]

I regularly discuss EU exit with the Secretary of State for Scotland and other members of the Cabinet. The Government remain committed to securing a deal that works for the entire United Kingdom.

[Patrick Grady]

There might be two people competing to be Prime Minister, but I think there are at least five who think they will be the next Chancellor, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should just get to stay in post and then they will all be equally disappointed. He seems to be concerned that they are somehow going to ruin his deal dividend, but is not the truth that there is no real dividend from any Brexit, that the best possible deal for Scotland and the rest of the UK is the one we already have, which is membership, and that that is the case that he and other sensible Government Members should have the courage to be making?

[Mr Hammond]

I have consistently made the case and explained to this House that there is fiscal headroom within the current fiscal rules. If we have a smooth exit from the European Union through a transition that will remove the economic uncertainty that is hanging over our economy, it will then be safe to release that headroom and make it available for additional public spending or, at the choice of the next Government, to reduce taxation. Either way, we have the headroom available once we have removed the Brexit uncertainty.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

Is it not the case that Scotland, like everybody else, will know the plans for future public spending, for fiscal headroom and for the economic effects overall if the comprehensive spending review were to be started sooner rather than later? Is the Chancellor able to tell the people of Scotland, the people in this House and the people beyond when the comprehensive spending review will be starting?

[Mr Hammond]

I announced at the spring statement that it is the Government’s intention to conduct a three-year spending review concluding this autumn, subject to a deal with the EU being completed. Departments are already commissioned to carry out the work necessary for such a spending review, but it will be for the new Government to decide whether the circumstances make it appropriate to conduct a full three-year spending review or a single-year exercise.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

22. Mark Carney has warned that Brexit has already cost households up to £900, with the Fraser of Allander Institute suggesting that it could cost Scotland 100,000 jobs by 2030. Given that the Chancellor was a remainer himself, will he, as a Back Bencher—I wish him well in that, incidentally—vote against any deal removing us from the single market and customs union?

[Mr Hammond]

As I have consistently said in this House, I do not believe that a no-deal exit would be in the interests of this country, and I will do everything I can to ensure that we avoid it, but an exit based on a negotiated deal that allows us to continue a close trading relationship with the European Union can work for Britain, and that is what I will be arguing for.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Is the Chancellor aware that only 18% of Scottish exports go to the rest of the European Union but 61% go to the rest of the United Kingdom? Is not the Union that really matters to Scotland the Union of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, my hon. Friend is exactly right. The Scottish economy would be far more adversely affected by a breach of trading relationships with the rest of the United Kingdom than it will by a breach in trading relationships with the European Union.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. What progress the Government have made on establishing a shared prosperity fund.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

5. What progress the Government have made on establishing a shared prosperity fund.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

The Government will establish a UK shared prosperity fund to spread prosperity and opportunity across all four nations once we have left the European Union and the EU structural funds. The fund will seek to raise productivity, focusing on levelling up parts of our country whose economies are further behind. More details will be announced following the spending review, and the Government will consult widely on the funds.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

Analysis of local enterprise partnerships by the charity think-tank NPC found that only 26% of board members were women and that only 5% were black, Asian and minority ethnic. When will the Government finally come forward with their consultation on the shared prosperity fund? Does the Minister agree that funnelling the UK fund through the LEPs would be a mistake unless they are made more representative?

[Robert Jenrick]

We intend to consult later this year, following the spending review. Officials at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have already held 26 engagement events and have met more than 500 representatives from across the United Kingdom.

With respect to the hon. Lady’s very important point about representation on LEP boards, I should say that the LEP review conducted by MHCLG jointly with the Treasury last year did conclude that they needed to have broader representation from the groups that she mentioned—and from private sector businesses, large and small. Those rules and guidelines are now in force.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Shortly after the referendum on Europe, I asked the then Prime Minister David Cameron what would happen to the £726 million of European funding that we were due to receive in the north-east. He could not answer. We are now three years on and none the wiser about the supposed replacement—the shared prosperity fund. How can anyone have confidence in this Government and their handling of Brexit if they cannot give even that basic information to the region that is set to be the worst hit by any form of Brexit?

[Robert Jenrick]

The people of the north-east of England voted to leave the European Union; I know that the hon. Lady takes a different view, but we are trying to deliver on the outcome of the referendum. Had she voted for the withdrawal Bill, these matters would, of course, be progressing. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already said, we are guaranteeing funding to the beneficiaries of all EU structural funds to 2023, so there is a degree of certainty as we move forwards. But the sooner that this House can coalesce on a good deal and that we can leave the European Union in an orderly fashion, the sooner this matter can be cleared up.

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

My constituency and the rest of Cornwall continues to be one of the less developed areas, even though there is much going for where we are and where we live. What would the Minister say to my county, the Duchy of Cornwall, about how soon it can expect to really contribute to the process of the shared prosperity fund?

[Robert Jenrick]

As I have already said, we intend to consult later this year. I strongly encourage my hon. Friend’s constituents to take part in that consultation; he and I have already spoken about this. I have met representatives from Cornwall Council, for example, to talk about the issue and some of the projects that they care strongly about—including, of course, the stadium in Cornwall, of which my hon. Friend has been a strong proponent.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Rebalancing the economy is not just about north and south or the different nations of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister ensure that the shared prosperity fund is distributed using a range of indicators, such as gross value added, the regional human poverty index and disposable income, so that areas in the west midlands in need receive their fair share?

[Robert Jenrick]

Absolutely—those are exactly the kinds of questions that we dealt with in the consultation.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Some of the problems in our United Kingdom can be traced to the disparity between the regions and nations of the UK. Will the Minister ensure that the shared prosperity fund is not the end, but just the beginning, of ensuring that there is prosperity across the entirety of our nation?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there are disparities of income and productivity across the United Kingdom, and what he mentions will be one of the key objectives. But the shared prosperity fund is not our only intervention in this area: we are taking a range of measures, including significantly increasing the amount of public investment in infrastructure—to the highest levels in this country since the 1970s.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Despite pledges that the Government would provide details on the shared prosperity fund by the end of last year, the Chancellor has been silent on how much communities could lose from the £17 billion-worth of structural funds. The Chancellor has only now woken up to the danger, splurging nearly £10 billion, almost half that amount, on tax cuts for the well off—as advocated, of course, by the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). Surely the only shared prosperity under the Conservatives is for those who are already well off.

[Robert Jenrick]

Clearly, it is not possible to progress this matter until we have greater certainty about our exit from the European Union. Those Members of this House who want to see this matter progressed should be voting to leave at every opportunity, as we on the Government side have done. The important thing to point out on regional disparities is that this Government are investing far more than the previous Labour Government. In fact, £430 million a week more in real terms is being invested by this Government than under the previous Labour Government on infrastructure in all parts of the UK.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

4. What fiscal steps the Government are taking to support the northern powerhouse.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

The Government are supporting the northern powerhouse through devolution deals for, among others, Manchester, Liverpool, the West Midlands and, most recently, North of Tyne, as well as through over £13 billion of investment in better transport across the north. In addition, we have invested over £3 billion from the local growth fund in the region since 2015, and we committed at the Budget to announce a renewed northern powerhouse strategy later this year.

[Rachel Reeves]

It is quite an achievement for the Minister to get up and say that without any sense of irony whatsoever. The truth is that we have had the incredibly disappointing news this week that Pacer trains in the north of England will not be removed by the end of this year, as previously promised. Despite the warm words about the northern powerhouse, the truth is that since 2014 spending on transport in the south of England has risen twice as fast as in the north of England. Will the Minister use the spending review as an opportunity to rectify these imbalances and finally give meaning to those words, “the northern powerhouse”?

[Robert Jenrick]

With respect to the hon. Lady, she is not correct on the numbers. This Government are investing more in the north than the previous Labour Government. Over the course of this Parliament, central Government investment in transport infrastructure will be higher in the north of England than it will be in London and the south-east on a per capita basis. We have seen a 40% increase in central Government funding per person in the north under this Government.

[Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that this Government have invested more than £500 million in the northern powerhouse, attracting more businesses and creating more jobs?

[Robert Jenrick]

Over the course of this Parliament and the last, this Government will have invested £13 billion in transport for the north. With respect to Northern Powerhouse Rail, which was mentioned earlier, over the last two years we have given £97 million to Transport for the North to build the business case and prepare the ground for that project. In the course of the spending review—our zero-based review—we will be considering how to take forward that project.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

My constituents in Barnsley Central and people right across the north of England will judge this or any Government on deeds, not words. Does the Minister agree with me that if the northern powerhouse agenda is to be taken seriously, we need to see schemes such as Transport for the North’s strategic transport plan, which includes Northern Powerhouse Rail, properly resourced by the national Government?

[Robert Jenrick]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is why we have given funding to Transport for the North to prepare a properly thought-through business case. We of course have decisions to make in the spending review about which of those projects should be taken forward and which provide good value for money. In the hon. Gentleman’s own city and city region of Sheffield, we have of course given money through the transforming cities fund to improve inter-city connectivity for his constituents.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

My constituency and the wider Humber region would greatly benefit if there were improved rail-freight connections east-west. What plans does the Minister have to fund those?

[Robert Jenrick]

We have received representations from the midlands engine, and from Midlands Connect in relation to transport, about both road and rail east-west connectivity. We are considering them carefully, and they will form part of the spending review.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I spot the Leader of the House on the Treasury Bench, but I do not know whether he wants his old job back.

The Exchequer Secretary talks a good talk on fiscal steps to support the northern powerhouse, but the broader facts speak for themselves. Since 2015, for the first time in 50 years, the UK Government no longer provide regional investment aid in England, according to the Industrial Communities Alliance’s evidence to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee inquiry. What is his explanation for that?

[Robert Jenrick]

We give many other funding streams to northern communities, including £3.3 billion through the local growth fund and £13 billion for wider transport schemes.

[Peter Dowd]

So that’s an unambiguous no. The north is home to 15 million people in five major city regions, 265 towns and 1,000 villages and smaller communities. It has 29 universities, the UK’s largest airport outside the south-east and eight major ports, one in my constituency. Does the Exchequer Secretary agree that changing those eight ports, as suggested by the Foreign Secretary and the former Foreign Secretary, into not economic hubs of excellence but potential revenue-draining, tax-avoiding, money-laundering free ports—more like free-for-all ports—is no substitute for a focused, well-resourced and sustainable economic strategy for the north?

[Robert Jenrick]

Perhaps unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am interested in any proposal that can drive economic growth in the north of England. Free ports are an interesting proposal, which we have discussed with a number of communities. We have urged them to come forward with well-thought-through business cases. We have yet to receive them from many places, but we have received one from Teesside and we will consider them carefully in future.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

6. What estimate the Government have made of the number of promoters of loan schemes subject to the 2019 loan charge who have been convicted; and if he will make a statement.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

10. What assessment he has made of the effect of the 2019 loan charge on people working in the (a) public and (b) private sector.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

The loan charge tackles so-called disguised remuneration arrangements, which use loans to avoid tax. It applies in the same way to people in the public and the private sectors. A tax information and impact note published in 2016 and a report on disguised remuneration published in March 2019 both considered the impacts.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

What more can be done to tackle the promoters of loan schemes who gave workers and businesses assurances, even though the Treasury had made it clear that the schemes were unacceptable? Should they not be brought to book? Have any of them been convicted yet?

[Jesse Norman]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right and HMRC will continue to take firm action against those who promote tax avoidance schemes. As he will know, and I think has been made public, it currently has more than 100 promoters under civil inquiry. It is important to be clear that although there are no criminal offences of promoting or marketing tax avoidance schemes specifically, HMRC may conduct criminal investigations and make referrals to prosecuting authorities where, for example, there is evidence that promoters have deliberately misrepresented the facts to it.

[Jamie Stone]

Perfectly innocent working people are caught in a terrible trap here and there have already been several suicides. HMRC said that

“teams are trained to identify customers who are anxious, worried or need extra support to ensure they get the help they need.”

Will the Minister confirm whether those people have had that training? Will a dedicated helpline be set up to help people who are under huge stress?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there is stress, but he should also be clear that a large number of people have been systematically using those means to avoid paying tax, and the potential amount payable is more than £3 billion. He should be protective of the tax base more widely when he reflects on those matters. He is right that HMRC is taking careful steps to ensure that it protects and supports those who may be in genuine difficulty, and those who have other personal concerns can of course be referred to outside agencies.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)]

The reality is that many people caught up in the loan charge scandal were effectively mis-sold schemes that they were told had been QC vetted and were perfectly legal. That is underlined by the fact that no criminal charges are being pursued against any of the individuals who sold the schemes. Is it not time for this fresh Minister to take a fresh look at the Treasury’s approach to all this?

[Jesse Norman]

I think that my right hon. Friend misstates the case. A disclosure of tax avoidance number was associated with a large number of those cases. The people knew that they were in schemes that were potentially suspect. Every person is responsible for signing off their own tax return. I trust that my right hon. Friend will be reassured by the fact that recently six individuals were arrested on suspicion of promoting fraudulent loan charge arrangements. That speaks to a wider picture.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

20. Economic crime defrauds the Exchequer of countless billions in revenue. Two and a half years ago, the Ministry of Justice launched a call for evidence on corporate liability for that. Incredibly, as of this morning, it says it is still analysing the evidence that it received. Clearly, cracking the problem is critical to the Treasury’s funding public services. What are Treasury Ministers doing to wake their colleagues up?

[Jesse Norman]

I can only admire the ingenuity of a man who can crowbar a question about the Ministry of Justice, unrelated to the loan charge, into this issue. Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that regardless of what may be the case on that, HMRC is taking tens of billions of pounds, relating to avoidance and evasion matters, that are due. He should be very grateful and delighted about that.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

The loan charge all-party group claims evidence for four suicides relating to the loan charge and HMRC has referred itself with respect to one. When I asked a parliamentary written question on the assessment the Treasury had made of the impact of the loan charge on the mental health of the people subject to pursuit, the answer was, to put it mildly, less than satisfactory. Will the Minister now tell us what effect the Treasury believes its policy has had on the mental health of all the people subject to pursuit in both the public and private sectors?

[Jesse Norman]

May I put on record my surprise that a former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, with its concern for the public finances, should take that view? Some people may have been very adversely affected in mental health terms and we must protect them at all times using all proper measures. HMRC is attempting to do that. However, there is a much larger number of people who are simply seeking to avoid paying tax due.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

People were told that they could work particular jobs if they took on this way of remuneration. Will that be considered? Will the Minister take on board what the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) said and just take a fresh look at this issue?

[Jesse Norman]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that there were other signs that indicated to people that they were in tax avoidance schemes—for example, a very low or relatively low effective rate of tax. The signs were there and people would have been right to pick up on them. Even if they were mis-sold, that does not have a bearing on the question of whether tax is now due.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

7. What steps his Department is taking to tackle stakeholders’ concerns on the roll-out of the off-payroll working rules to the private sector.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

In response to stakeholder representations at Budget 2018, the Government announced that the extension of the off-payroll working rules reform would not take effect until April 2020. That was designed to allow organisations more time to prepare. The reform will also not apply to the smallest 1.5 million organisations. The Government have now consulted on the detailed design of the reform. Responses to that consultation will be taken into account when drafting the legislation.

[Mr Baron]

Nevertheless, there are concerns within the private sector about the forthcoming adoption of IR35. What lessons are there from its application to the public sector?

[Jesse Norman]

That is a very important question. I hope my hon. Friend will be reassured. Independent research shows that the public sector reform has been meeting its objective of improving compliance with existing off-payroll working rules without disrupting public services or reducing labour market flexibility. The Government recognise that the private sector is much more diverse, but HMRC will continue to work with stakeholders to improve employment status checks and associated guidance. It will also provide a significant package of education and support to businesses to help with implementation.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

It is only correct that contractors pay their fair share of tax, but the IR35 rule fails to equalise tax equally between them and employees, and is overly bureaucratic. Will the Minister join me in urging the Chancellor to ensure that the 2019 Budget and Finance Bill improve the rule or scraps it altogether?

[Jesse Norman]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is only about a 10% compliance rate with proper tax payable in this sector. He should therefore be applauding, as I am, the means to raise the level of compliance. In many ways, this is a simplification of the rules, which is being carefully and deliberately handled.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

8. What recent representations he has received from the Secretary of State for Education on the level of Government funding for early years education.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)]

I regularly meet the Secretary of State for Education to talk about education funding. This issue will be settled as part of the spending review.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I hope the Chief Secretary has learned from those conversations and will go out to talk to early years providers. The shortfall in funding is having a huge impact. I visited a nursery in my constituency recently and it is clear that it is the staff who are bearing the brunt of it. They are on only just above minimum wage. I cannot help thinking that if the people working there were not women perhaps their work would be valued more. Will she ensure that she makes representations, when the spending review comes, on lifting the freeze?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I point out to the hon. Lady that we are spending a record amount on childcare and early years support—£6 billion a year, which is £700 million more than in 2015—but of course we will look at representations as we go forward into the spending review and make sure we treat all parts of education fairly.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Will the Minister look particularly at funding for two-year-olds? Providers of early years education in my constituency tell me they lose money on providing that service for two-year-olds because there are significant additional costs in looking after two-year-olds but only a small uplift in the rate paid.

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We will look at that. It is important to acknowledge the progress this Government have made by introducing 30 hours of childcare for three and four-year-olds with working parents and 15 hours of childcare for children with parents on low incomes. Those are important steps. Of course, we will look in the spending review at the rates and ensure they are fair right across the country.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Children with higher educational needs are losing out even more. My local authority overspent by £760,000 last year and will overspend by £1.3 million this year and £1.9 million next year. Those children need this vital support in order to grow. Will the Minister look at the funding of the higher needs budget to ensure that local authorities can support those families?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Lady is certainly right that we have seen demand for special educational needs funding rise. We need to look at that as part of the spending review, from both a local government point of view and a Department for Education point of view.

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to maintain access to cash.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

I welcome the benefits that electronic payments are bringing to people and businesses across the UK. However, the Government recognise the importance of cash to many, particularly the most vulnerable members of society. That is why we have committed to safeguarding access to cash for those who need it. In the light of changing payment trends, the Government have created the Joint Authorities Cash Strategy Group. That Treasury-led group will seek to bring together the regulators and the Bank of England to inform and co-ordinate members’ activities related to cash and safeguard access for those who need it.

[Kirstene Hair]

I recently sent a survey about access to cash to thousands of my constituents. There was an overwhelming response, because they are terrified that we are going far too fast into a cashless society. The next time the Minister meets banks, will he raise with them the impact that rural banking hubs could have on our local communities, just as the pilot business hub has had in Birmingham?

[John Glen]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s excellent campaigning on this matter, which we have had meetings to discuss. The Government have no direct role in the matter, but we recognise the role that banking hubs have played for businesses across six trial sites. We are looking at that carefully, and I will be very happy to raise it with the banks when I meet them next.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Will the Government commit to working with cash machine suppliers to ensure that cash withdrawals remain free across the board? Charges disproportionately affect those on lower incomes, who make smaller cash withdrawals.

[John Glen]

Absolutely. We are looking into that. The Payment Systems Regulator, which was set up four years ago, is responsible for overseeing LINK. It has two schemes in place to safeguard access to cash in the most impoverished communities and to ensure that, when an ATM is vulnerable to closure, there is a responsibility to keep it open if constituents would have to go more than 1 km to access cash.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

21. The town of Bungay has been without a bank branch and a free-to-use 24/7 town centre ATM since last May. That is causing serious challenges for traders, the elderly and those managing on a tight budget. Will the Minister put in place a regulatory framework to reverse this regressive trend?

[John Glen]

I acknowledge the difficult situation that my hon. Friend has in Bungay. The Government-established Payment Systems Regulator is closely monitoring developments in ATM provision and, as I said, there are mechanisms in place to intervene. I am very happy to meet him to discuss the application of those to the situation in Bungay.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given that post offices and credit unions provide easy access to cash, is it not now time to offer business rates relief to both to enhance the provision of cash and other affordable financial services?

[John Glen]

Of course small businesses receive that relief. The Chancellor will have heard that representation for the next fiscal event, but it is not a matter that I can comment on specifically at this point.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

11. What discussions he has had with the high street banking sector on closures of the last bank in (a) Staveley, Derbyshire and (b) towns throughout the UK.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

While branch closures are commercial decisions for banks, I regularly engage with all key stakeholders on this issue and I recognise that it can be very difficult for some constituents, particularly if a branch is the last one in a community. The major banks have signed up to the access to banking standard, overseen by the Lending Standards Board, and that commits them to work with communities to minimise the impact of branch closures.

[Toby Perkins]

When the Government bailed out the banks, it was partly in recognition of the fact that banks were public services as well as profit-making businesses. I am disturbed—as will be the people of Staveley—by the Minister’s hands-off approach. Do not the Government either need to sit down with the banks and ensure they have a real commitment to having a bank branch in towns such as Staveley or adopt Labour’s proposal for a post bank so that we can have some Government control to make sure we have services where they are desperately needed?

[John Glen]

I have looked into the situation in Staveley and it will be served by a mobile bank following the closure. The post office, where a 24-hour ATM is available, is just a six-minute walk from Lloyds. The number of people visiting the counter at Lloyds bank in Staveley fell by 22% in the last year, so it is understandable why Lloyds has made that decision. The Government’s investment in the Post Office and its banking services facility is our solution.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

The Minister should make no mistake: communities up and down Britain are being deliberately starved of cash and banking services as the banks, with the support of Government, are trying to create a near cashless society. Can he say a bit more about what he is doing to help the more than 1 million poorer people who do not have access to a bank account?

[Mr Speaker]

A bit more, but not too much more.

[John Glen]

I recognise the difficulty and I am happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss the issues in his constituency. We have invested considerably in the post office network and I am meeting the Lending Standards Board to look at the mechanism for transfer to the Post Office and to consider solutions on a case-by-case basis.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

12. Whether he plans to launch a three-year spending review before the summer recess; and if he will make a statement.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)]

As the right hon. Gentleman would have heard me say if he had been in his place earlier, I announced in the spring statement that it is the Government’s intention to conduct a three-year spending review, concluding this autumn, subject to a deal with the EU being completed. He asks whether I plan to launch the spending review before the summer recess: I can tell him that Departments have already been commissioned to carry out the work necessary for such a review. It must be for the new Government to decide, in the circumstances, whether it is appropriate to conduct a full three-year spending review or a one-year exercise.

[Tom Brake]

I can assure the Chancellor that I saw him give that response on television earlier. What would be the impact on the comprehensive spending review of either the proposal of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), for a £13 billion cut in corporation tax and a £12 billion increase in defence spending, or the proposal of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) for a £9 billion higher rate income tax threshold cut, £11 billion national insurance contributions cut and showing the public sector “some love”? Would those unfunded bribes be paid for by tax increases, cuts in services or both?

[Mr Hammond]

I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is manifestly asking the wrong person that question. I literally cannot answer it. The purpose of a spending review is that such matters can be looked at in the round, and the responsible way to do a spending review is first to set the envelope of what is affordable, and then to look at the different bids, which will—I can confidently predict—greatly exceed the available spending power, and prioritise. That is the difficult business of government, and that is why I am not in favour of ad hoc spending commitments or tax cut commitments being made.

[Mr Speaker]

The Chancellor is a clever chap, but his capacities do not include the capacity to penetrate the minds of colleagues, especially those in competitive vote-seeking mode.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Homes England indicates a current pipeline of some 15,000 community- led homes in England. That shows the significant positive impact of the community housing fund. Will my right hon. Friend confirm the continuance of the fund so that those much-needed homes can be built?

[Mr Hammond]

As my hon. Friend knows, we have signed off the Truro funding decision, and I am sure she is happy about that. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that dealing with the challenges in the housing market is a priority for the Government, and in the spending review we will continue to prioritise funds to support both the housing market and the provision of social and affordable housing.

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (LD)]

If the UK leaves the EU without a deal and the Chancellor is still in his post, does he envisage there being enough fiscal headroom following the spending review to give the top 10% of earners a tax cut worth more than £9 billion? Surely that is wholly unjustified.

[Mr Hammond]

I think the hon. Gentleman has sketched a highly unlikely scenario, but I can answer his question. We have built up about £26 billion or £27 billion of fiscal headroom, and the purpose of that headroom is precisely to protect the UK economy from the immediate effects of a possible no-deal exit. I have no doubt whatsoever that in the event of a no-deal exit we will need all that money and more to respond to the immediate impacts of the consequent disruption, which will mean that no money will be available for longer-term tax cuts or spending increases.

Let me go further: the Government’s analysis suggests that in the event of a disruptive no-deal exit there would be a hit to the Exchequer of about £90 billion, and that will also have to be factored into future spending and tax decisions.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that we need to be careful with our spending pledges, but I think that investment spending is different, particularly when the investment is in the north. Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider our letter of 29 April—signed by 80 parliamentarians—which calls for £120 billion of investment spending over 30 years and a bringing forward of the Northern Powerhouse Rail programme?

[Mr Hammond]

We are committed to investment in infrastructure. One of the things that I have done in my three years as Chancellor is move the balance of spending towards investment in economic infrastructure, and we now have the highest level of public capital investment for 40 years. We have a National Infrastructure Commission to set long-term guidance for the Government on how to invest in infrastructure investment, and that will be considered in the zero-based capital spending review that sits alongside the main spending review. However, I assure my hon. Friend that this Government are committed to investing in the productive capacity of the UK economy, because it is the only way to raise real wages and living standards, and that is what government is all about.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

13. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of his fiscal policy on living standards.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

The Government’s decisions on tax, welfare and spending on public services have benefited households across income distribution, with the poorest gaining the most as a percentage of net income. That is supported by the distribution analysis published by the Treasury at the time of the most recent Budget.

[Alan Brown]

That is nonsense. The UK is already the most unequal society in Europe, and the gap is becoming wider. In order to mitigate the worst welfare cuts and reforms, the Scottish Government are having to pay out £125 million this year alone. The Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights has said that the situation is “unsustainable”. Does the Minister agree that instead of arguing about tax cuts for the rich, Westminster needs to reverse those welfare cuts?

[Robert Jenrick]

The United Kingdom is not the most unequal society in Europe; it is not anything like that. The Government’s policies, such as our policies of investing in infrastructure and in boosting productivity, have been designed to level up the parts of the UK that need it the most. When it comes to poverty and living standards, things are improving. Real wages have been rising for 10 consecutive months, and more people are in work. In the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, unemployment has fallen by 60% since 2010.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

23. One way in which the Minister could easily help to raise living standards would be to pay those under 25 the same national living wage rates as those over 25. I know he will not announce that at the Dispatch Box, but will he tell us what concessions under-25s are given in their housing costs, insurance costs and living costs that warrant their being paid less than those over 25?

[Robert Jenrick]

Our priority has been getting young people into work. In 2010 we inherited a youth unemployment rate of 20%; we have almost halved that. The priority for this Government will be ensuring young people get a great education; more young people are in good or outstanding schools than when we came into power in 2010, and we want them to get apprenticeships and get into work and get on in life.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to help ensure that charities are able to claim timely VAT refunds.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

Having run a capital project myself, I am keenly aware of the importance of good cash flow; I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. HMRC receives more than 2 million VAT repayment forms a year, and in 2017, the latest year for which figures are available, over 90% of them were paid within five days of receipt. A supplement is paid if it takes more than 30 days before payment is made, and HMRC also has a free dedicated charities help desk designed to help organisations with their tax inquiries.

[Mrs Hodgson]

4Louis is a charity set up in Sunderland in the memory of Louis, who was stillborn in 2009. It fundraised and built the Louis bereavement suite at Sunderland Royal hospital at a cost of £75,000, some £12,500 of which was paid in VAT. Another suite is planned at Durham at a cost of £100,000 and £20,000 of that is VAT. These huge amounts of VAT could be used by the charity to build another bereavement suite. What advice can the Minister give to it specifically on how it can attempt to get this VAT back?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady will understand that a range of schemes is available for some parts of the charitable sector. We recognise the concern that the hon. Lady is expressing; I cannot deal with individual cases, but obviously if she wants to write to me on the wider issue I will be happy to take it up with HMRC.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

A much loved local provider of employment for my constituents with learning disabilities has been forced to consider closure after a change in interpretation of the VAT rules regarding the provision of services under the personal payments arrangements; the retrospective VAT bill of around £150,000 means that Spokes, the trading arm of the charity the Emily Jordan Foundation, faces closure with the subsequent loss of a very important local resource. Will my hon. Friend consider meeting with Chris Jordan on behalf of the charity in order to discuss a way forward that can save this incredibly important local business?

[Jesse Norman]

Again, I absolutely recognise the concern, although of course I am not familiar with the details. I cannot get involved in a specific case, but my hon. Friend is welcome to write to me and I will refer the matter to HMRC.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)]

My principal focus is to ensure the continued resilience of the UK economy and public finances at this time of uncertainty. Thanks to the hard work of the British people, our national debt is now falling sustainably for the first time in a generation, but it is still too high and it is vital that the Government continue to get debt down to ensure that the economy is resilient against future shocks, to prevent the wasting of billions of pounds more on debt interest payments, and to avoid burdening the next generation.

[Mary Glindon]

Since 2013 this Government have given tax handouts worth £4.1 billion to the big alcohol corporations at a time when the NHS is short of 40,000 nurses. Would it not be a sensible choice to invest in the nurses, doctors and police officers who have to deal with the problems caused by cheap alcohol?

[Mr Hammond]

We have done so: by 2023-24 we will be spending an extra £34 billion a year on the national health service. That is a record cash injection to our national health service, which represents this Government’s commitment to it.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

T5. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirm that he is absolutely committed to maintaining the independence of the Bank of England?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

Yes, it is a vital cornerstone of our institutional structure that the Bank of England remains independent, and those who have suggested that they would seek to politicise appointments to the Bank of England would be doing a great disservice to this country and our economy.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The Chancellor, like most of us, has been watching the accumulation of spending promises by the Tory leadership candidates. They amount now—[Interruption.] They amount now to nearly £100 billion, and one of the Chancellor’s colleagues commented yesterday that they make me look like a fiscal moderate. May I ask the Chancellor what impact this level of unfunded commitments would have on his economic strategy, or can he tell us how they could possibly be funded?

[Mr Hammond]

There are many people who could comment on spending commitments that have been made by candidates in the Tory leadership competition, but the right hon. Gentleman is not one of them.

[John McDonnell]

Let me try this one. Both Tory leadership candidates are threatening no deal. This morning, the Chancellor has eloquently set out the consequences of no deal. Bearing in mind what he said, may I ask him very straightforwardly whether he will join us and commit himself to doing everything he possibly can to oppose the Prorogation of Parliament to try to sneak no deal through, and also to voting against no deal?

With your permission, Mr Speaker, if I may: this might be the Chancellor’s last Treasury questions and I just want to thank him for the civility with which he has always maintained our relationship. I also admit that there have been times when we have enjoyed his dry sense of humour. I gave his predecessor a little red book as a present. We have another red book today, but this is a guide to London’s rebel walks and we hope that he will enjoy it in his leisure periods.

[Mr Hammond]

That is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman; I much prefer this little red book to the one he gave my predecessor, although I have to say that I have not read this one and I have read the other one.

On the broader question, I have been consistently clear that I believe that a no-deal exit would be bad for the UK, bad for the British economy and bad for the British people. We cannot rule out that happening, because it is not entirely in our hands, but I agree with him that it would be wrong for a British Government to seek to pursue no deal as a policy. I believe that it will be for the House of Commons, of which I will continue proudly to be a Member, to ensure that that does not happen.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

T6.   My constituent Karen Harrison-Taylor’s parents are among the tens of thousands of pensioners who are stranded in their homes due to shared appreciation mortgages saddling them with debts of up to nine times their original loan. What steps are being taken to assist those who are unfairly tied up in these schemes?

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

Borrowers who believe that they have been mis-sold a shared appreciation mortgage are able to take their complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The Government are unable to comment on group action cases relating to this issue as we have no role in deciding whether cases may be heard in court. I note that the annual review of the Financial Ombudsman Service in 2003-04 said that in most cases it had not upheld complaints of shared appreciation mortgage mis-selling due to the information being satisfactory. That is the situation at the moment.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has much good advice given to him, but is he picking up the nightmare scenarios that I am getting from senior business people in the north of England who fear that we are heading for a new global economic meltdown? They believe that that, combined with our crashing out of the European Union, would be a disaster for their businesses and for the country.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to storm clouds over the global economy. We tend to focus on Brexit-related issues and the domestic agenda, but I have just come back from the G20 in Osaka, and looking more widely, we can see that global growth is slowing and that global trade growth is slowing even more dramatically. A great deal hinges on finding a solution to the disputes between China and the United States. It is hugely in our interests that that dispute is resolved and that normal trading relations are resumed between the world’s two economic superpowers. As a middle-sized open economy, we are bound to be adversely affected if global trade slows down.

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

T7. Dean’s short- bread, based in Gordon, has been encouraged by the annual investment allowance to invest in new facilities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this policy is stimulating business to release pent-up investment and that it demonstrates the confidence of UK companies?

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

I am delighted to hear the news of new investment in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I take my hat off to Dean’s shortbread. As he knows, the two-year increase in the annual investment allowance, which the Chancellor announced in the Budget, is helping firms right across the country to invest in new plant and machinery. It gives 100% first-year tax relief on the first £1 million of eligible investments and helps small and medium-sized firms such as Dean’s shortbread to continue to grow.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

T3. The west midlands has seen knife crime rise by 106% in the past five years, the average time for the Crown Prosecution Service to reach a decision has increased by 64% since 2013, and more than 2,000 police officers have been lost since austerity began in 2010. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury make money available to reverse 10 years of Government cuts to police services to ensure that my constituents can feel safe?

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)]

I reassure the hon. Lady that we have already put additional funding into the police grant, and we have raised spending power such that it increases in real terms. Additional surge funding has been put into the west midlands to acknowledge the specific issues in that area.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

T8. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and this Government on the net zero emissions climate change commitment. What are his plans to achieve that goal?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

We made an announcement this morning about our plans for green finance. Over the coming months and years, it will be essential to demonstrate how we are able to mobilise our capital markets and the instruments of a market economy to deliver on this huge enterprise. If we do not demonstrate how the market economy can provide solutions to decarbonising our economy, there are others with alternative solutions to present.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

T4. During the Department for International Development estimates debate yesterday, there was a clear consensus across the House that the 0.7% of GDP aid commitment should remain and, for that matter, that DFID should remain an independent Department. Will the Chancellor restate that that remains the whole of Government policy, and does he believe that it should continue to be Government policy after 24 or 25 July?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, that position is enshrined in statute, and only this House of Commons could change it.

[Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)]

More of my Southampton constituents are in work than ever before, but many of their jobs are low-paid, with few career prospects, if any. What are the Government doing to improve employment opportunities for my constituents?

[Mr Hammond]

We have worked hard to build a stronger, fairer economy, dealing with the deficit that we inherited, helping people into work and cutting taxes for people, families and businesses, and the result is that the economy has grown continuously for the past nine years. Employment is currently at record high levels, unemployment is currently at the joint lowest rate since 1975, and real wages are rising again. We have created 3.5 million new jobs, but the next stage must be about increasing real wages by raising productivity, because that is the only sustainable way to raise the living standards of working people in this country.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

T10. Last month, the Wandsworth food bank published its yearly report. It showed that 5,770 emergency food parcels were handed out in a year—a 76% increase over five years; that nearly half of referrals were due to problems with social security, specifically the five-week wait for universal credit; and that nearly two thirds of those supported by a food bank adviser were disabled or had a long-term health condition. The consequence of Tory austerity is that record numbers of people are relying on charity to eat. Since this is probably the Chancellor’s final oral questions in post, may I ask whether he is proud of that legacy?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The reality is that that we have got a record number of people into work. Universal credit has been shown to help more families get into work, and it has made work pay. We have also made adjustments to universal credit to shorten the wait time, and we have put in an extra £630 a week for families.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

It has been a while since I asked the Chancellor about the blockchain and distributed ledger technology, so I was hoping that he could present an update on how the Treasury is embracing this new technology.

[John Glen]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The UK’s digital economy is thriving and is growing 10 times as fast as the wider economy. We are pursuing a range of measures to reinforce that leading position, and that involves implementing a 10-year action plan to unlock over £20 billion in finance growth in innovative firms and a further £7 billion for research and development since 2016, with internationally competitive research and development tax reliefs to support investment.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has just pointed out, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) has made £30 billion-worth of spending pledges and the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) has made £13 billion-worth of pledges. The Chancellor has said it will not happen on his watch, but that seems to suggest that a magic money tree has been found in the barren soil of the no deal for which we seem to be heading.

I want to ask the Chancellor about the pledges announced by the current Prime Minister in the past few weeks, which unfortunately have not included any compensation for the infected blood community. How have the Chancellor and the Treasury prioritised and costed those announcements?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The Prime Minister has made a number of announcements since 23 May, including on modern slavery and mental health. All these announcements have been costed and are affordable within existing budgets for 2019-20.

[Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)]

What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that dementia care is adequately funded in the next spending review?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point about dementia care, which is one of the issues that will be looked at as part of the long-term plan for health. Due to the fiscal responsibility exercised by this Government, we are able to put extra money into health services to deal with issues such as dementia.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

I welcome the Chancellor’s remarks about a no-deal Brexit and the disaster it would be for our country, costing jobs and livelihoods. Does he agree that both Conservative leadership candidates, who support a no-deal Brexit, should stop selling out the country to serve their own political ambitions? Will he commit to joining us in voting against a no deal when and if he returns to the Back Benches, and to voting with us on a no-confidence motion, if it comes to that, to stop a no deal?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

At this stage of my career, I will not speculate on my future actions. What I will say is that the Government’s analysis shows that a no-deal exit would mean that all the regions, nations and sectors of the UK economy have lower economic output compared with today’s arrangements and compared with the White Paper scenario that the Government set out. It is important we all understand that preparing for a no deal, which is a perfectly sensible thing to do because it might happen to us without our volition, is not the same as avoiding the effects of a no deal.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Net zero emissions by 2050 is a desirable but very costly policy. Does the Chancellor agree that we must do everything to protect low-income families in my Cleethorpes constituency and elsewhere from bearing an unfair burden?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes. This is a huge commitment, but it is the right commitment to make. The Committee on Climate Change recommended that the Treasury should undertake a review of the funding and financing mechanisms to ensure that this huge undertaking can be funded, and that it will be funded in a way that is fair to families, households and businesses across the UK, which is exactly what we will do.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The “All Kids Count” report, on the impact of the two-child limit after two years, was published last week by the Church of England, the Child Poverty Action Group, Women’s Aid, Turn2us and the Refugee Council. The report illustrates the devastating impact of the two-child policy, particularly on working families who are unable to compensate for the £2,780 a year cut by working longer hours. Before the Chancellor leaves office, will he scrap the two-child policy and its devastating impact on families?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The universal credit policy has been designed to make sure that people who are being supported by the Government are in a similar position to families who have to make their own financial decisions based on the wages they earn every week.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

The decision by the European Union to suspend the equivalence agreement with Switzerland seems to be very damaging. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done a fantastic job over the past few years. Will he confirm whether the United Kingdom was consulted on whether the decision should go ahead?

[Mr Hammond]

We have been closely involved in this issue, discussing it both in the EU and with the Swiss. I can tell the House that although on the face of it the withdrawal of equivalence had a very significant effect on the ability of UK shareholders to trade Swiss shares on the Swiss stock exchange, the measures that the European Securities and Markets Authority announced on Friday significantly mitigate the impact. So we very much hope that the European Union and Switzerland will be able to reach agreement, and of course there is a very direct relevance to the UK’s own negotiations with the European Union.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Will the Chancellor commit to enabling the 120,000 families on very low incomes who find out about a tax credit overpayment when they claim universal credit to have a fair chance to appeal against those deductions averaging £1,500 being made and to giving them a chance to raise themselves out of poverty?

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the question, and I am happy to refer her to the welfare Secretary on the matter.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Does the Chancellor share my concern about the way some local councils are misusing Public Works Loan Board loans to speculate on commercial property, including many in Surrey?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend knows that I do share his concerns on this matter. The Public Works Loan Board is there to support local authorities’ capital spending. Some of the development activities of local authorities are perfectly legitimate: for example, the regeneration of urban areas. What is not legitimate is local authorities arbitraging the low interest rates of the PWLB to buy commercial property for yield, in order to develop income-yielding property portfolios. The Treasury is looking at how we can manage that situation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have now had 20 topical questions. Whether this is the Chancellor’s last appearance at the Dispatch Box as Chancellor remains to be seen, but whether it is or not, he will always be able to tell his children that demand for him exceeded supply of him. He can say to them proudly, “I always left them wanting more of me.”

Business without Debate

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modification) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 16 May, be approved.—(Mike Freer.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

[Mr Speaker]

Petition

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Hong Kong

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

12:42

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to yesterday’s protests in Hong Kong.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

For a number of weeks now, the world has been watching massive yet largely peaceful protests in Hong Kong in opposition to the proposed extradition legislation. Unfortunately, a small number of protesters chose to vandalise the premises of the Legislative Council yesterday. Her Majesty’s Government strongly condemn any such violence but also understand the deep-seated concerns that people in Hong Kong have about their rights and freedoms. The vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of people who took part in the 1 July march yesterday did so in a peaceful and lawful manner.

The UK is fully committed to upholding Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and rights and freedoms under the One country, two systems principle, which is guaranteed by the legally binding joint declaration of 1984. We reject the Chinese Government’s assertion that the joint declaration is an “historic document”, by which they mean that it is no longer valid, and that our rights and obligations under that treaty have ended. Our clear view is that the Sino-British joint declaration of 1984 obliges the Chinese Government to uphold Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, and its rights and freedoms, and we call on the Chinese Government to do so. In respect of the recent demonstrations, the main responsibility for addressing this tension rests with the Government of Hong Kong, including the Chief Executive.

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank the Minister for that statement. May I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for again allowing an urgent question on this ever-increasing and serious matter, which is heard not just in this country, but throughout the world? Last night, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) organised a meeting in the House under the auspices of Hong Kong Watch, and she and I co-chaired it. It was a very well attended and, sadly, timely meeting, with more than 100 people, mostly Hong Kongers, present. The message from that meeting, especially from activists such as Tommy Cheung and Willis Ho, was clear: they worry that the Government of the People’s Republic of China will see yesterday’s events as an excuse for ever more direct intervention in Hong Kong’s affairs. They want to hear that this country will continue to stand with them against that threat.

Unfortunately, the images that dominated our television screens yesterday were those of the occupation of the Legislative Council building. There was much less coverage of the fact that on Monday, half a million families, young children and older people marched down major roads in peaceful protests. In his representations to Carrie Lam’s Administration, will the Minister make it as clear as possible that any consequences for the actions of the hundreds of protesters in the LegCo building should not be visited on the many thousands—in fact, millions—of people who have protested on Hong Kong’s streets in recent weeks?

The images broadcast around the world yesterday were ones of violence and vandalism, but they were also images of fear and frustration from people who are increasingly desperate that the world looks on at their plight and will do no more than wring its hands. Will the Minister make it clear to Carrie Lam that there is much more that she and her Administration can do to reassure her own population? It is surely clear to all that a suspension—even a suspension sine die—of the Bill to allow for the amendment of the extradition arrangements is not enough. The people of Hong Kong need to hear that the Bill has been abandoned completely.

The Hong Kong police have described the victims of police violence in recent weeks as rioters, when we know that they were peaceful protesters. Will the Minister impress on the Executive that such use of language must be withdrawn? Will the Executive instigate an independent inquiry into the police violence on 12 June?

Finally, the Chinese Foreign Ministry yesterday declared the Sino-British joint declaration to be meaningless. I welcome the Minister’s repudiation of that from the Dispatch Box, but will the Government now consider all meaningful sanctions at our disposal, including the possible use of Magnitsky powers, to ensure that those who infringe the human rights of the people of Hong Kong will have no hiding place in the United Kingdom?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

First, I genuinely acknowledge and recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s interest in and deep knowledge of this issue, and I commend him for the activity that he generates in the House, which is shared in by so many other Members from all parties. I thank him for his analysis and for what I consider to be a measured series of questions that go very much to the point. We all agree with him that any actions taken in response to the vandalism that took place should be proportionate and within the rule of law, and should not be taken against larger numbers than those who were actually involved in that vandalism.

As the right hon. Gentleman recognises, and as I said in my opening remarks, a lot of the ability to address the tension rests with the Government of Hong Kong and the Chief Executive Carrie Lam, in respect of the extradition legislation that has generated so much protest. Whereas we fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the joint declaration remains valid—again, I said that in my opening remarks—we are not here to dictate and instruct either the Chinese Government, or that of Hong Kong itself, to do what we believe they should be doing within the autonomy that has properly been granted to them. I am sure the House will appreciate the delicacy of our wanting to uphold the rule of law while having to be careful not to instruct either Government about what they should do in specific detail.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

It is good to see my right hon. Friend responding on this matter; his broad wingspan now covers yet more of the planet.

The disgraceful behaviour of the demonstrators who entered LegCo yesterday and the misuse of the Union flag should be noted by Parliament, as should the damage done to the case that they are making. I looked at the statement by the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Geng Shuang, who said that

“the SAR government decided to suspend work on the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019.”

He also said:

“The Chinese Central Government expresses its support, respect and understanding for the SAR government's decision”.

Surely a period of dialogue and discussion is now required to try to reach a mutually agreed solution to this complex problem.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing out that I am answering questions that do not normally fall within my responsibility. My wingspan has stretched wider than I or any Member would normally expect.

My right hon. Friend is far more expert on this issue than I am, but the one point on which we can all agree is that a period of de-escalation and dialogue would be far preferable to any continuing tension and violence. I very much hope that all those who are involved in this issue can pause for thought and try to plot a way through this without further escalating any kind of conflict.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Hong Kong situation is spiralling out of control very fast now. It is unfortunate that, in the absence of a Minister with responsibility for the far east, the Foreign Secretary is not in his place. I agree with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). He set out well the events of yesterday. I want to concentrate on four questions for the Government. First, Hong Kongers have made it abundantly clear that they want the disastrous extradition laws to be abandoned for good. That is not an unreasonable request. Will the Government finally take the side of the Hong Kong people and call on Carrie Lam to scrap this legislation?

Secondly, I welcome and agree with the Foreign Secretary’s call for a public inquiry into the actions of the Hong Kong police force. Evidence has emerged that the order to fire tear gas on the protesters was given by Superintendent Justin Shave, a British expat now serving with the Hong Kong police, and that two other expat chief superintendents were two of the most senior officers in charge of crowd control on that day in June. What are Ministers doing to bring to book these British citizens who ordered the police brutality?

Thirdly, after firing rubber bullets on the protesters, the Hong Kong authorities accessed hospital data records in order to arrest them. That is random and unfair. Will the Minister join me in condemning this appalling behaviour? Clearly, yesterday the events in the Legislative Council were unacceptable, but the police tactics appeared to have been totally confused. Finally, the root cause of the chaos is the fundamental democratic deficit in Hong Kong. The rights enshrined in the Basic Law and the promises to move towards universal suffrage are being trampled on. When will the Government listen to the voices of the citizens of Hong Kong and put democratic reform back on the agenda?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

First, let me point out to the hon. Lady that, of course, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would like to be here, but there are compelling reasons for him not being here, given that there are hustings for the leadership after which I very much hope that he will be picked as our next Prime Minister. The hon. Lady’s first question is a matter for Hong Kong and its Government. In respect of an inquiry, my right hon. Friend has already urged the Hong Kong Government to establish a robust investigation into the events of 12 June. With regard to universal suffrage, we believe that the terms of the joint declaration should, of course, be fully upheld.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is not unknown for Communist regimes to insert agents provocateurs into popular movements in order to discredit them? Will he bear in mind that the messages that we send to Communist China—for example, in sucking up to it over issues such as Huawei and our telecommunications infrastructure—need to be looked at through the prism of its human rights abuses?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

It is not for me to speculate on whether agents provocateurs have been going about such business. That is a matter for the Government of Hong Kong to investigate. In respect of the Chinese Government, the Prime Minister did speak to Chinese Vice Premier Hu on 17 June, and we do speak very directly to them about Hong Kong and, of course, about human rights in general.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for once again raising this issue, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. This is a deeply serious matter, and I think that that has been expressed by Members across the House. I welcome the remarks of the Foreign Secretary and of his deputy at the moment, the Minister for Europe and the Americas, that the authorities must engage in a meaningful dialogue and that the preservation of rights and freedoms are critical. I also welcome what was said by our partners in the European Union who have said that these rights need to be respected. There is never an excuse for violence—there cannot be an excuse for violence—but we must reflect on the concerns of non-governmental organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch about the use of torture and also, as has been reflected on by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, the concerns of the overwhelming majority who have undertaken peaceful protest; their voices must not be drowned out over the coming days. It is more important than ever that Hong Kong’s autonomy and the independence of the judicial system are respected. It will be good to hear the Minister’s plans to put that case, and also to urge the Hong Kong authorities to listen to legitimate concerns. The Foreign Office must do what it can to facilitate that and to work, where appropriate, to de-escalate tensions. Now is the time for calm heads.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I think that I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has just said. The autonomy of Hong Kong is very important. Hence we have to strike a balance between seeing what is happening but not dictating to Hong Kong how it should respond. On listening to concerns, it is, of course, the responsibility of the Hong Kong Government to listen to the concerns being expressed by their own people, but in terms of us expressing our concerns to them, we do so very forcefully and properly through proper diplomatic channels.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The Minister has couched his response in sensibly balanced terms. Does he agree that the Hong Kong Government have said that the extradition Bill will not be brought back to the Legislative Council until it lapses and that it is, therefore, effectively dead? Does he also agree that, whatever the frustrations of some protesters, the vast majority of the half a million people who marched yesterday do not want to see the vandalism that happened at the Legislative Council; and that Her Majesty’s Government should continue to balance strong support for the six freedoms enshrined in the joint declaration with support for the rule of law against violence, and encourage efforts to rebuild trust between the Hong Kong Government and the people of Hong Kong so that that the territory can revert to its peaceful and successful path under the one country, two systems formula?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent and well-informed question. His experience in the far east is very well known and understood by this House. He mentioned the procedural definition of whether the legislation is suspended or effectively dead. That is not quite for me to speculate on. From our own experience, we know the importance of procedure in this House, particularly as we are dealing with certain big issues at the moment that rely on it. As for the freedoms, indeed, the autonomy under the joint declaration is something that must be respected and not in any way diluted.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

May I reiterate the calls from around the House for a calm head and for the violence that started last night to stop? What is being done to try to encourage talks between the student protesters and the LegCo? In particular, how can the Government stress the importance of young people? With just 1,200 people having a say over the leader of the LegCo, how can the concept of democracy, or even a consultation about democracy, get on to the agenda so that young Hong Kong people can feel that they have some hope?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The Basic Law specifies that the ultimate aim is for both the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council to be elected by universal suffrage, and that objective would be in the best interests of Hong Kong. In the meantime, as the hon. Lady sensibly says, we want to see a cessation of violence and the emergence of a dialogue, which has already been mentioned. In terms of us trying to persuade people to take those steps, I very much hope that this very moment in this House will be noticed in Hong Kong and elsewhere, so that people can see that a wider voice across the world is calling for such things.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Both Carrie Lam and the Chinese Government have repeatedly referred to the importance of upholding the rule of law in response to the protests. The Minister himself has spoken about and affirmed that principle at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, but does he agree that upholding the rule of law cannot be used as a pretext for suppressing legitimate and peaceful protest, and that when we speak about the rule of law we mean respecting absolutely the principle of one country, two systems and protecting basic civil freedoms in Hong Kong?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Yes. In addition to one country, two systems, the same principles about the rule of law that we would apply here should apply in Hong Kong—that is, that peaceful protest is legitimate and violence is something that we condemn. We can quite understand the grievance felt, and the millions of people who have been taking to the streets show the intensity of that opinion, but in order to be effective protesters must, in their own interests, stick to peaceful protests and not allow a small number of people to destroy the credibility of their actions.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Behind the specifics of this incident, is there not a bigger, wider and more problematic concern, which is that the Chinese Communist party is fearful of losing its grip on its people? That is why it is tightening its grip—squeezing harder and harder—and Hong Kong is just a tiny aspect of that. Is there not an irony in the fact that China is trying to argue in favour of the rule of law when it constantly flouts the rule of law around the world, even though Hong Kong has done China proud over the last 50 years?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

There is, of course, ample scope for analysing what is going on in Hong Kong within the broader question of what is happening in China and what role China wishes to play within China itself and across the world more widely, so the hon. Gentleman’s question is a valid one. However, with regards to the specific question we are addressing today, we should keep our focus on trying to de-escalate tension in Hong Kong itself so that a path forward can be mapped out for the benefit of everybody there.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Is China in breach of the joint declaration?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

We obviously call on China fully to adhere to the joint declaration. I hope that will lead to the implementation of the full details under the Basic Law.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I welcome the decision of the British Government to prohibit the sale of tear gas to Hong Kong. However, the South China Morning Post reports that approved British export licences of lethal weapons to Hong Kong include grenade launchers, mortar bombs, sniper rifles, machine guns and gun silencers. Are the British Government considering those export licences as well?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The primary focus of anything we have said so far in the context of these demonstrations has been about crowd control equipment. The Foreign Secretary announced on 25 June that we will not issue any further export licences for crowd control equipment to Hong Kong unless we are satisfied that our concerns raised on human rights and fundamental freedoms have been thoroughly addressed.

[Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

We all condemn the terrible violence that has occurred in Hong Kong over recent days. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential for Hong Kong’s future success that the full extent of its autonomy and rule of law as set out in the joint declaration and enshrined in the Basic Law is implemented? What more can my right hon. Friend do to encourage more dialogue between the parties in Hong Kong?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on Hong Kong’s autonomy and upholding of the rule of law. It may well be that the most constructive way forward is to establish a dialogue in the next few days between the Government of Hong Kong and their own people that can help to reduce the tensions in Hong Kong that we have seen erupt on the streets over the past few weeks.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is very good to see the Minister spreading his wings. In fact, I hope he will soon return to the Dispatch Box to say something about the disgraceful and disturbing decision by the Japanese to start whaling again—killing hundreds of whales this year.

On Hong Kong, the fact of the matter is that what we have seen in the last few days is out of character. My suspicion is, who is going to gain from instability in Hong Kong? Of course, the answer is the Chinese Government, not the Hong Kongese.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that China should see Hong Kong as something that can benefit China itself. A prosperous and stable Hong Kong is not only good for Hong Kong; it is also good for China. There is a symbiosis that can be mutually beneficial. I very much hope that in honouring the terms of the 1984 agreement in the years ahead, that mutual benefit can be put into practice and that everybody can win from it.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Hong Kong is a really important partner for the UK because of our past ties and Hong Kong’s potential future prosperity. Will the Minister therefore confirm to the House that freedom of speech will continue to be enshrined in Hong Kong’s basic law as part of the one country, two systems principle, as we would expect from any partner that we trade and work with?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The Basic Law will not change. It is there in the 1984 agreement. I hope that all its elements will be fully upheld, and that should include freedom of speech and the proper implementation of the rule of law.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

At a time when democracy and human rights are under attack by authoritarian regimes across the world, it is critical that Britain sets out clearly whose side we are on. I welcome the Minister’s statement that the Sino-British agreement is still valid, but what steps is he taking to validate that validity, as it were? Does he agree with the last Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, that that might be more effective if we were not simultaneously trying to negotiate a post-Brexit trade agreement with China?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I do not think that it is really appropriate to link the two. We have the joint declaration in place; it is legally binding until 2047, and we expect China to uphold it. If there were to be a breach, we would pursue some resolution bilaterally, but in the meantime I hope that there can be an improvement of exchanges and dialogue between the Hong Kong Government and their own people to try to improve the situation that they are currently confronting.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

What estimate does the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have of the number of Chinese People’s Liberation Army personnel in Hong Kong, and has there been any suggestion of an increase in that number?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that I am not in a position to give him an exact number. In as much as we have such an estimate, I will certainly write to him and give him the benefit of what we believe we can pass on.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I welcome much of what the Minister has said today. Of course, we cannot in any way condone the vandalism or violence of recent days, but the Minister will be aware of assertions that those who are in control of the police have orchestrated the police response over the past 24 to 36 hours to aggravate the consequences of the situation. Will the Minister comment on whether he has any evidence that those assertions are true?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am unable to confirm that I have any such evidence; I have not been advised as such. Obviously, it is very much our view that any police response should be proportional and lawful. Of course, if the demonstrations are peaceful, we hope that no such violent, or forceful, response is in any way needed, but if there are acts of vandalism, that would then put any such engagement into a different context.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

While the escalation in violence in Hong Kong is deeply regrettable, and every effort should be made to de-escalate it, it is clear that there is continuous provocation by the Chinese side, particularly with regard to the repudiation of the validity of the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration that underpins the highly successful one country, two systems structure that has guaranteed Hong Kong’s success. Far from simply asserting Britain’s continued recognition of that declaration, what will we do to enforce it in practice?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

We are not a position to, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, enforce it, but if there were a breach, as I said, we would engage China in a proper bilateral discussion. We speak very forcefully and loudly about upholding the 1984 agreement, and, in doing so, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in what he calls for.

Problem Gambling

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

13:09

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)]

Before I make my statement, Mr Speaker, I hope you will allow me to send my best wishes—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—to the Lionesses in advance of their semi-final match this evening. As you know, sport so often brings us together. The men’s football team did so at their World cup last summer and the women are doing so at their World cup this summer. We salute them for that. We congratulate them on their successes so far and wish them well for the game tonight.

This statement is about today’s announcement on support for those affected by problem gambling. While we all want a healthy gambling industry that makes an important contribution to the economy, we also need one that does all it can to protect those that use it. Problem gambling can devastate lives, families and communities. I have met those who have lost more than the UK’s annual average salary during one night of gambling online, and parents who are now without a child as a result of gambling addiction.

Over recent months, I have also met representatives from the gambling industry and colleagues from right across the House to discuss what more needs to be done. We can all agree that it is best to prevent harm before it occurs and to step in early where people are at risk, but we also need to offer the right support for those people who do experience harm. We have already acted to reduce the minimum stake on fixed odds betting terminals to £2 from £100. We have tightened age and identity checks for online gambling websites—an important step in protecting children and vulnerable people who may be at risk.

Today, five of the biggest gambling companies have agreed a series of measures that will deliver real and meaningful progress on support for problem gamblers. This announcement has been welcomed by the Gambling Commission, GambleAware and Gamban. These companies, together, represent about half of the British commercial gambling industry. At the heart of this package is a very significant increase in their financial contribution to fund support and treatment. Last year, voluntary contributions across the whole industry to problem gambling yielded less than £10 million. Now, five operators—William Hill; Bet365; GVC, which owns Ladbrokes Coral; Flutter, formerly known as Paddy Power Betfair; and Sky Betting & Gaming—have said that over the next four years they will increase tenfold the funding they give to treatment and support for problem gamblers. In this same period, they have committed to spending £100 million specifically on treatment. The companies will report publicly on progress with these commitments, alongside their annual assurance statements to the Gambling Commission.

Last week, as the House knows, NHS England announced that it is establishing up to 14 clinics for those with the most complex and severe gambling problems, including where gambling problems co-exist with other mental health problems or childhood trauma. It has also been announced that the first NHS problem gambling clinic offering specific support for children is set to open. The funding announced today enables a huge boost for the other treatment services that complement specialist NHS clinics, and it will help us to place an increased focus on early intervention.

I know that Members across the House have argued for a mandatory, statutory levy to procure funds for treatment and support in connection with problem gambling. I understand that argument. However, as the House knows, legislating for this would take time—in all likelihood, more than a year—to complete. The proposal made this morning will deliver substantially increased support for problem gamblers this year. It may also be said that receipts from a statutory levy are certain and those from a voluntary approach are not, but it is important to stress two things. First, these voluntary contributions must and will be transparent, including to the regulator, and if they are not made, we will know. Secondly, the Government reserve the right to pursue a mandatory route to funding if a voluntary route does not prove effective.

This is a clear financial commitment from industry to addressing the harms that can come from gambling. But this is not solely about spending money: it is a package of measures spanning a number of different areas to ensure that we tackle problem gambling on all possible fronts. First, a responsible gambling industry is one that works together to reduce harm and wants customers to be safe, whichever platform they use or however they choose to gamble. The companies already identify customers whose gambling suggests they may be at risk and take steps to protect them—their licences require this—but they will go further. We have already seen the successful launch of GamStop, the multi-operator self-exclusion scheme. I am pleased that companies have committed to building on this through the greater sharing of data between them to prevent problem gamblers from experiencing further harm.

Secondly, the five companies will use emerging technology to make sure that their online advertising is used responsibly. Where technology exists that can identify a user showing problem gambling behaviours, and then target gambling adverts away from that person, they have committed to using it. More generally, the industry has already committed to a voluntary ban on advertising during live sport during the daytime that will come into force next month.

Thirdly, operators have committed to giving greater prominence to services and campaigns that support those in need of help. They have pledged to increase the volume of their customer safer gambling messaging; to continue their support for the BetRegret campaign, which is showing promising early results; and to review the tone and content of their marketing, advertising and sponsorship to ensure that it is appropriate.

These are welcome commitments that represent significant progress in the support that operators give for those impacted by problem gambling, but as technology advances, we will need to be more sophisticated in how we respond. The five companies that have proposed these measures today will be working closely with the Government, charities and regulators so that we can address any new or developing harms. I commend the leadership of the five companies who have put these measures forward. They are proposals from some of the industry’s biggest companies. I believe that it is reasonable for the biggest companies with the largest reach and the most resources to do more and show leadership, but the industry as a whole needs to engage in tackling problem gambling, and we want other firms to look at what they can do to step up. And I repeat: it will remain open to the Government to legislate if needed, so this is not the end of this conversation. We will keep working hard as a Government to make sure we protect users, whether online or in the high street.

There is still much more to do, but today’s announcement is a significant step forward. It means substantially more help for problem gamblers, more quickly than other paths we could take. We must and we will hold the companies that have made these commitments to them, and we will expect the rest of the industry to match them. They will change lives for the better and contribute to the ongoing work we are doing to make gambling safer for everyone. I commend this statement to the House.

13:19

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

The whole House is united in supporting the Lionesses in their game at 8 o’clock tonight. The Opposition believe that we must capture the energy created by women’s football; 10 million people will be watching tonight. That is why we think that the next women’s World cup should be added to the “crown jewels” list of free-to-air sport.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Last September, Labour announced that we would introduce a 1% mandatory levy on gambling companies to pay for research, education and treatment of problem gambling. We stand by that commitment today: only a mandatory levy will do.

I am glad that the gambling industry has sat up and listened to what we and other campaigners, on both sides of the House, are saying on this issue. Credit where it is due: the big five companies have shown leadership and responsibility, which are sorely lacking in some other parts of the industry. Gambling addiction costs the economy an estimated £1.2 billion a year, yet the amount that the industry currently contributes to treating addiction is paltry.

The voluntary levy, as it currently operates, asks for 0.1% of gambling yield. That target is never met. The industry turns over £14.5 billion a year, yet contributes less than £10 million a year to GambleAware. Some companies contribute amounts that are, frankly, insulting to the voluntary system. SportPesa, which sponsors Everton, and Fun88, which sponsors Newcastle, gave only £50 each last year. Both are white labels of the company TGP Europe. Best Bets gave £5, while GFM Holdings Ltd gave just £1. Given that there are 430,000 gambling addicts, 55,000 of whom are children, that is completely unacceptable and deliberately insulting to those leading players in the industry who are trying to take responsibility. Will the Secretary of State tell us how he will make such companies take more responsibility if not through a mandatory levy?

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care now supports a mandatory levy; Simon Stevens, chief executive of the NHS, supports a mandatory levy; the Gambling Commission supports a mandatory levy; and Gambling with Lives supports a mandatory levy. However, I cannot quite understand from his statement whether the Secretary of State, who has responsibility for this policy area, supports a mandatory levy—does he or not?

We in the Opposition believe that a mandatory levy is the only way to provide the structure and consistent funding that a proper system of research, education and treatment needs, and with the NHS at the heart of the process. In the announcement today, the so-called big five have said they will fulfil the 0.1% donation to GambleAware, but where will the rest of the funding go? Who or what will establish the proper clinical models and guidelines for service provision? Can the Secretary of State tell us how the Government will ensure that the money does not just go on the companies’ pet projects?

After today, we will still have inadequate regulation and a Gambling Act that is outdated and not fit for the digital age. Gambling companies licensed in the UK are sponsoring UK football teams yet operating entirely abroad, behaving irresponsibly and fuelling addiction in countries such as Kenya. Companies are allowing customers to lose tens of thousands of pounds on multiple credit cards in a single sitting. There are companies that bombard customers who try to self-exclude with advertising emails and offers of free bets, then make them sign non-disclosure agreements when they settle.

The gambling market is broken, and it is up to the Government to fix it. We do not need a voluntary patch, but a full overhaul of rules and regulations. I fear that the Secretary of State and the Government will fail in that task.

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for some, at least, of what he has said. I reassure him on a number of points. First, as he says, he has always been in favour of a mandatory levy that will raise 1% of gross gambling yield. The commitment being made by the five companies in question this morning is to fund 1% of gross gambling yield, so they are offering him what he has asked for. It seems sensible and reasonable to accept that that is what they are doing; I shall come to his other points about where the money goes in a moment.

It is also right, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the rest of the industry needs to do better—I said as much in the statement. It is important that other companies follow the example set by the five who have spoken this morning. They need to take more responsibility in the way that he suggests. As I have made clear, we do not take off the table a mandatory levy, particularly for those companies that are not prepared to proceed on a voluntary basis as the five now are.

I do not doubt that the reason why those five are proceeding in this way is a result of pressure applied by many in this House, including those of us in government who have met repeatedly with them to make clear what our expectations are and to say that, if those expectations are not met voluntarily, they will be met in other ways. I make the same clear to all those companies that have not yet come forward as those five have.

The hon. Gentleman makes the fair point that people will want to know that the funding goes to the right places and does not simply find itself recycled back into the budgets of the five companies. As a result of what has been announced today, there will now be consultation with the NHS, the Gambling Commission, GambleAware and others on where the funding should go. Those organisations, of course, are best placed to indicate where the funding can best be used. Then, of course, it will be for the Gambling Commission to audit how that spending is distributed so that we all know where it is going and we can all judge whether it has been sent to the right places. If it has not, we reserve the right to continue to act in a different way.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

Some years ago, as shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, I was sitting where the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) is now. I witnessed the then Labour Government and their mammoth explosion of gambling, both online and elsewhere.

Despite repeated warnings, successive Governments have failed to tackle what is a pernicious problem, particularly among less well-off people. Historically, people with gambling and other addictions who have health insurance or money can get treated, so I very much welcome the fact that some of these companies are now going to fund treatment for the less well-off. But will the Secretary of State say a little more about how he envisages these clinics? Will they be sustained on a long-term basis? What is the geographical spread? Will the money be hypothecated? Critically, will the NHS match the money from the five companies to date?

I welcome the move today, but I have to say that I am not convinced that we will not need some kind of mandatory levy in the longer term.

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s comments. He is right to be sceptical: we are all sceptical and remain sceptical in government about this. However, it would be wrong not to recognise the significant step forward that this announcement represents.

In answer to my right hon. Friend’s point about hypothecation, I should say that it has been made clear that £100 million of the money announced today will be reserved for treatment over the four-year period. We will want to make sure that the requirements for treatment are met via this contribution and those that we expect the rest of the industry to make.

As I mentioned in the statement and as my right hon. Friend knows, commitments have already been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to spend money on gambling, which is a recognised and real health problem. The money I have announced today is to supplement that. We must make sure that there is no duplication but rather that these contributions reinforce the money that is already committed.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I appreciate the progress that is being made. Having discussed many of these issues with the Secretary of State and his Department, I genuinely believe that he gets it and is improving the situation, but I would take issue with a number of points. The statement touches on the argument for a mandatory levy, but undermines it by saying that it would take a year to complete. That reminds me of the old adage that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) often reminds me of: “When is the best time to plant a tree? Twenty-five years ago.” If we do not start now, we will not be any closer a year from now. Is the Secretary of State suggesting that the gambling companies would withdraw their offer? If not, there is nothing to lose by starting the ball rolling now.

What we have now is an unacceptable compromise. Any amount that cannot be guaranteed, cannot be budgeted. If we are to provide education, research and support, it cannot be done piecemeal. We need to employ people, provide training and rent premises, and we need a strategy that can be followed over a five, 10 or even 15-year period. A voluntary levy does not provide such a platform. There is no continuity or security.

This offer is an attempted pay-off—a bribe—to appease the conscience of the gambling industry, and it takes the heat off. I fear it also allows the UK Government to absolve themselves of their responsibility. It leaves the commissioning of services to organisations favoured by the Gambling Commission, which is funded by the gambling industry. That is not a good model for commissioning harm-reduction services, or education and research. Will the Minister review the role of the Gambling Commission and its funding model to make sure it is effectively regulating gambling companies, including by legislating, if necessary, to ensure that responsible working practices are in place?

The draft statement says:

“I have met users who have lost more than the UK’s annual average salary on credit cards during one night of gambling online.”

Are we going to address gambling on credit cards? I see no word on that. It mentions fixed odds betting terminals, for which the maximum stake was set at £2, but let us not forget that the gambling industry was dragged kicking and screaming to the table on that particular one. I hope the same will not be said about harm reduction in years to come.

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman started his comments with the mandatory levy. He is right, of course, that it will take time to do this. If someone is interested in how quickly they can do things, the sooner they start, the sooner they finish. All of that is true. I said it would take at least a year; it may in fact take nearer to 18 months because any of these changes will need to begin at the start of a tax year.

A mandatory levy would deliver a return of 1% of gross gambling yield. What is being put forward today—except by only five companies, but that represents about half of the commercial gambling industry—is exactly for that: 1% of gross gambling yield. We would not derive any more income from a mandatory levy than we will from this process, but via this process we will derive it more quickly, and that is a real advantage for the problem gamblers whom I know he and I are both very concerned to help.

I do not accept that this is a piecemeal commitment. It is a four-year commitment, which we—all of us; not just the Government—will have the opportunity to monitor. If it is not being met in the way we all expect, we can and will take further action.

The hon. Gentleman is right that the Gambling Commission receives its funding from the industry; that is generally the case with regulators. If we had a mandatory levy, it would still fund the same activities. However, I believe the Gambling Commission is the right body, as the regulator, to be able to give us the assurance, which the Opposition spokesman properly raised, that the money is being spent on the right things, not simply ploughed back into the activities of the five companies.

The hon. Gentleman knows I take the view that there is more to do in relation to gambling on credit. He knows, too, that the Gambling Commission is in the process of looking at this in detail. I want to see what it concludes, but I believe a lot more can be done on gambling on credit to make sure that those who are particularly vulnerable do not find themselves more vulnerable by gambling on credit.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Opposition spokesman mentioned an estimate of 55,000 children addicted to gambling. Do the Government accept that this terrifically large figure is accurate? If so, what proportion of it is a result of the advent of online gambling and what age verification measures are in place to supply at least part of the solution?

[Jeremy Wright]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is difficult to be precise about the number of young people in particular who have problems with gambling, as my right hon. Friend will recognise, but it is a fair assumption that online gambling contributes significantly to that problem. As a result, we have already seen improvements in identification and age verification. We need to see further improvements to make sure that the trend decreases.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by the family of a constituent who is addicted to online gambling and is trying to recover. There are some measures, to which the Secretary of State referred, to prevent online gambling, such as the website GamStop, which allows users to put controls in place to restrict their gambling activity. However, it is not compulsory for betting companies to sign up for this, and it is far too easy to bypass the current controls. Will the Secretary of State look at making GamStop mandatory, and will he support tougher controls?

[Jeremy Wright]

We will certainly look at what more we can do. The five companies we have talked about are signed up to GamStop, and it is important that more accept this as a useful mechanism to help those with problem gambling. It is also right that we look at banks to make sure mechanisms are in place to allow the people who choose to do so to indicate to their bank that they do not wish to spend money in these areas. We have already seen banks such as Monzo and particularly Barclays, which is a large bank, doing exactly this. Other banks are now looking at it, at our urging, because it is important that we have additional safeguards in place.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

While I understand the arguments made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) and sympathise with many of them because they are in the spirit of my ten-minute rule Bill, I cautiously welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, because I believe it will deliver money to start proper independent research and analysis of what can and should be done to protect the vulnerable.

With caveats, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to confirm: first, when will the voluntary levy start happening; secondly, can it be front-loaded, so that there is a pool of money to do the research as soon as possible; thirdly, who will determine who does the research; and, fourthly, how will those who have not yet volunteered be implored to join the party and to contribute a voluntary levy? Lastly, and slightly separately, what progress has been made on a ban on all gambling adverts during live sports?

[Jeremy Wright]

Perhaps I may start at the end. My hon. Friend will know that in a few weeks—on 1 August—we expect to see instituted a ban on advertising during the currency of live sporting events before the watershed. Progress is being made, and we are pleased to see it.

I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the considerable pressure he has continued to apply to the industry. As I mentioned earlier, I believe the credit for this announcement goes not just to those making it, but to the many Members of this House on both sides who have applied consistent pressure on the gambling industry.

My hon. Friend asks when the voluntary levy will begin. As I indicated, one of the advantages of this approach in comparison with that of a mandatory levy is that we will start to see the fruits of it very shortly. By the end of this year, we expect to see additional funding coming through for the targets we wish to see addressed.

Secondly, my hon. Friend asks about front-loading. Of course, we want those who are going to be able to use this money to be able to set the parameters for how it should be used, so we must make sure that demand is met. At the moment, it is not likely that those who would be spending this money could spend £60 million a year. However, we of course want the industry to be receptive to requests for money as and when they are made, and it has indicated that it will be, so we must make sure we meet demand as it grows.

Thirdly, in relation to research funding and who will decide where it should go, as I have indicated, it will be for the industry to propose where this money should be spent, but it can be spent only in areas where the Gambling Commission and indeed others believe it is appropriate expenditure.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Last Friday, the inquest opened into the death of my constituent Jack Ritchie and I spoke to his parents shortly before the statement. He is one of too many young men who have taken their lives as a result of gambling addiction.

The BBC reports that a gambling industry spokesman has said that the welcome but modest—let us admit that it is modest—action today is to protect it from further, tougher action from us such as that on the tobacco industry. The gambling industry is right to draw the comparison with tobacco because it makes billions by creating misery and taking lives. Does the Secretary of State therefore agree that we need to go further? That would include banking the concession on the voluntary levy, but preparing now for a mandatory levy; effective, independent regulation of gambling products; and moving towards the comprehensive ban on advertising and sponsorship that applied to tobacco?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he may know, I have met Jack Ritchie’s mother, and I am grateful to her, too, for the considerable work she has done with immense dignity and courage in this field. I reiterate that the credit for the changes is to be shared widely. It is not simply for those in the House to take; it is for many beyond it, and Jack Ritchie’s parents are foremost among them.

The hon. Gentleman’s points are fair. I will not comment on what people may have said to the BBC. We must stick to the facts of the proposals and what they really mean, which is that we will recover from those five companies—as I have said, they comprise about half the commercial gambling industry— at least the same amount of money as we would if we had a mandatory gambling levy. There are questions about how we can be sure that the money finds its way to the right targets. We have sensibly dealt with those this afternoon and we will need to keep our attention on them. However, the amounts involved are similar if not identical to those that a mandatory levy would recover.

The proposals do not protect the industry from tougher action, and we will need to pursue matters further in a variety of ways—through advertising and other protections. We are not insulating anybody from further action on gambling. The Government will continue to do what we believe it is responsible to do to protect those who are vulnerable. However, it is fair to accept that the proposals are a significant step in the right direction and will produce a significant step up in the funding that gets to those who most need it, whose lives have been damaged by problem gambling and who require help now. The change will help us to deliver that assistance.

[Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the statement and the progress that he and the Department have made on this urgent problem, which blights the lives of many people in my constituency. Will he explain the steps that he is taking to ensure that the rules around online gambling keep pace with those for offline gambling?

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes. My hon. Friend is right that we all need to address the increasing prevalence of online gambling in the mix. She will know that the Department is currently concerned with a variety of so-called online harms, which we are trying to address more successfully than has been done thus far. However, one of the advantages of online gambling is that those companies know more about their clients because it is account-based gambling. Our expectations of them should therefore be higher, and they are.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

It is right that the gambling industry fulfils its responsibilities in tackling addiction, so today’s news is welcome, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) that much more needs to be done.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the unique position of horse-racing and its relationship with gambling in terms of the levy, sponsorship and live advertising? Does he also agree that millions of people like me enjoy a flutter on the gee-gees, a bet on the football and a visit to the casino or arcade without any difficulties, as an enjoyable pastime?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is important to recognise that not all gamblers are problem gamblers and that we must focus our attention on those who are in difficulty. It is also right to recognise that, as I said at the outset, we want the industry to be successful. However, we also want it to be responsible, and I believe that the changes will lead to greater responsibility.

The hon. Gentleman is also right to focus on horse-racing. I know that he is a huge supporter of the industry and does a great deal in this place to raise awareness, which he has done again today. He will recognise that the Government have introduced several measures, including last year’s changes to the levy itself, which brought in substantially more income—about £45 million more. We want to ensure that gambling can continue for those who enjoy it and do it responsibly and that companies take full responsibility for ensuring that any problems are properly addressed.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I welcome today’s announcement, which will lead to the biggest injection ever of funds to help with the treatment of problem gambling. I also welcome the commitment to take further action if required. Will the Secretary of State comment further on how we can use data to help solve the problem of gambling, particularly working with banks, credit card companies and the online sites, perhaps providing for the voluntary allowing of the use of data when people sign up to them?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend is right that we are in danger of missing some of the other important aspects of what has been proposed today. One of the proposals is that companies should share between themselves, with the consent of the individual gambler, information on any warning signs about problem gambling so that action can be taken by any provider of gambling services to which a problem gambler turns after starting with a different operator. It is important that that data is made use of so that people can be helped as soon as they arrive at the second gambling operator. If we can get consent to share that data, that will be a significant step forward.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

First, I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the Lionesses. I have enjoyed their performances, with the obvious and I am sure understandable exception of the Scotland match.

I give the statement a small welcome. It goes some way towards addressing the problem, but not nearly far enough, and Liberal Democrats will continue to argue for a compulsory levy. Gambling addiction is a public health problem, with clear links to mental health issues, and it needs a public health response first. The real cuts in public health under the Government are estimated to be between £700 million and £1 billion. Does the Secretary of State believe that today’s commitment will somehow help reverse the damage done by the Government?

[Jeremy Wright]

First, I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s gracious comments about the Lionesses. I appreciate that she would not have enjoyed their first match, but I hope that she enjoyed the subsequent matches much more.

The hon. Lady is right that we are considering a public health problem. As I said a moment ago, the Government are approaching it as such, and further action will be taken in the NHS plans to deal with problem gambling, for both adults and children. She is also right about the significant overlap with mental health problems, which of course we need to address in parallel. The money we are discussing is to enhance and add to that provision, not to replace it. It is important to say that. It is £100 million that will be diverted to treatment over four years and I hope that it will add considerably to what can be done for people who suffer from those serious problems.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I invite the Secretary of State to consider a mandatory levy from a slightly different point of view. In the statement, he rightly said that the five companies represent half the British commercial gambling industry. Would it not be fairer, under a mandatory levy, to spread that contribution across the whole industry, bringing everyone on board sooner rather than later, rather than expecting those five to pick up the bill for others, including overseas companies?

[Jeremy Wright]

The point is that those companies are taking the action voluntarily. I welcome that positive step forward. However, no one in the House has said that that lets anybody else off the hook—quite the reverse: it demonstrates that if those five companies can do it, so can others. It is important that all others across the industry look carefully at the proposals and that we hold them to account for producing a similar commitment. If they are unwilling to do so, I have made it clear that we do not put away the prospect of further action.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

The growing nightmare of online gambling, which is destroying lives and families, has been successfully halted in places across the world, in Germany and elsewhere, by simply banning it in law. May I suggest to the Secretary of State that the problem of online gambling could be solved at a stroke simply by making all gambling cash only?

[Jeremy Wright]

I think there is a different set of questions in relation to online gambling as an entire concept and gambling on credit. As the hon. Gentleman has heard me say, there is more we can look at specifically in relation to gambling on credit. I think we have to accept that the industry, like all others, is changing. As we live more of our lives online, people wish to exercise their leisure activities more online. I do not think it would be right to suggest that we should prohibit people entirely from gambling online if that is what they wish to do. As has been observed, most gamblers are responsible and able to gamble in a way that does not put them in difficulty. However, for those who do not have that capacity and do get into difficulty, we need to offer help. That help needs to be funded by the industry. That is what is being proposed here. For the rest of the industry that is not prepared to make the same commitment, we need to take further action.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The gambling industry is one that disproportionately preys on communities with the least disposable income and least able to afford the social harms caused. Glasgow, which is home to 26% of Scotland’s most deprived communities, has the highest per capita density of betting shops of any part of the UK outside London. Indeed, there are 2,588 people per betting shop in Glasgow, compared to the richest council area in Scotland where there are 12,000 people per betting shop. There is a clear statistically significant correlation with the impact that is having on poorer communities. In Glasgow, the social harms of gambling addiction alone are estimated to be £35 million a year. That accounts for half the revenue proposed to be generated from the levy. It is certainly inadequate to deal with the extent of the social harm caused. What will the Secretary of State do to redress the £35 million loss and social harm to the city of Glasgow?

[Jeremy Wright]

The Government need to do a number of things, and I indicated that there are actions we need to take in relation to the health service, but I believe that a substantial amount of the responsibility lies with the gambling industry itself. Again, I stress that this is a very considerable increase in the funding that is being offered. The £100 million is what is specified over those four years for treatment, but the general commitment is to 1% of gross gambling yield—exactly the same commitment that is asked for by those who argue for a mandatory levy. This is an acceptance by the industry that it bears a share of responsibility. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not get the sense from anything I have said that the Government intend to let up the pressure. We do not.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

The online gambling problem is significant, but betting shops present a problem on the high street. Will any of the levy go to help local authorities to tidy up the high street not just physically but in terms of crimes committed in the vicinity, such as drug dealing and violent acts, which do break out a lot around betting shops?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the wider issues that occur. She will recognise that the commitment being made here and the conversation around the mandatory levy relates specifically to research, education and treatment. It is focused on those who are already problem gamblers and who need assistance in the treatment sense and in a research sense more broadly. We expect all partners—there are many—to work together to deal with some of the social problems she has identified. I take the view that the gambling industry is one of those partners.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I, too, give a cautious welcome to the Secretary of State’s statement. It is good news, as everyone says, that £100 million over four years has been pledged by gambling firms. However, does the Minister believe that that is not enough? Does he agree that the best way of dealing with this is not through a voluntary levy based on the least that can be gotten away with, but, rather, additional tax legislation on every gambling firm—those that have committed and those that have not—to help offset the cost to the NHS of dealing with gambling addiction?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman notes that the £100 million is specifically in relation to treatment, but more money is being pledged than that. He is right to draw attention to tax. As he will know, tax measures are already in place to derive revenue from the gambling industry. They raise about £3 billion a year at the moment and it is open to any Government to reconsider the tax regime if they think it appropriate to do so. At the moment, however, I believe we should approach this with an open mind. We should seek to ensure that not just these five companies make the contributions they are offering but that the rest of the industry does so too, so we can funnel that money to where it is most needed.

Points of Order

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

13:54

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would very much welcome your advice. You will be aware of the considerable issues with the Department for Work and Pensions processing all manner of benefits, including universal credit and employment and support allowance, and the huge impact delays can have on people across the country who are left in extreme poverty as a result. Sadly, yet another of my constituents is affected by what I can only see as incompetence. I wrote to the DWP on 18 April asking when my constituent John Russell could expect an answer to a personal query about his employment and support allowance of several months before. Despite several contacts, he has not yet received a reply. My own intervention has been ignored by the Department for some 13 weeks, even though we have chased it up. Can you tell me how I might break through this barrier of ignorance and get my constituent the answers he needs?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me notice of it. It is obviously very concerning that it appears that the Department for Work and Pensions has been unresponsive to the concerns he has quite properly raised on behalf of his constituent. He has raised those concerns and they are on the record. I very much hope that those on the Treasury Bench have heard those concerns and will report them back to the DWP as a matter of urgency.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you might be able to give me some advice. It has come to my attention that yesterday marked the 80th anniversary of the noble Lord Dubs of Battersea arriving in Britain on the Kindertransport on one of the last trains from Czechoslovakia. I wonder how I might be able to place on the record my admiration for Alf and his contribution to British political and civic life over many years, and to pay tribute to him from his many friends in this place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order regarding a former Member of this House. I would say that he has very successfully expressed the views of the House and all our admiration for Lord Dubs.

Breast Cancer Screening (Women Under 40)

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No 23)

13:57

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to entitle women aged under 40 and with a family history of breast cancer to breast cancer screening services; and for connected purposes.

May I begin by putting on record my thanks to the charity Breast Cancer Now, which has given me such a great amount of support in preparing the Bill? I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) and the all-party group on breast cancer for their support. I thank all cross-party MPs who are backing the Bill. Even the Whip on duty, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), is a two-time survivor of breast cancer. The issue affects so many in this House and I am grateful for such great support for the Bill.

I was moved to introduce the Bill thanks to an incredible young lady called Nicola Morgan-Dingley. Nicola was one of the most inspiring young women I have ever met. She was a healthy 36 year old non-smoking, marathon-running wife and mum when she was diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer, or as she called it on her blog, “the killer boob”. She came to see me not just about her own care, but about the care of all the other young women across the country. She had a passion, a calmness and a sense of spirituality that I have rarely seen in anyone. It was impossible not to want to help her.

I raised Nicola’s campaign with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions, and Nicola and I went off together to see the Health Secretary about her campaign to ensure that young women get the early screening and early detection that could save their lives. As we sat on the Terrace after that meeting, and Nicola enjoyed a glass of wine and we put the world to rights, I would never have guessed that just two weeks later, at the age of 38, Nicola would lose her battle with cancer. I am here today as a tribute to Nicola, to carry on her campaign with what I am calling Nicola’s law.

The good news is that we are winning the war on cancer—more women are surviving the disease than ever before—but breast cancer remains the leading cause of death in women under 50 in England and Wales, with more than 920 losing their lives to the disease in 2017. Breast cancer is the UK’s most common cancer, with around 55,000 women and 350 men—it does not just affect women—diagnosed each year in the UK, and it is estimated that 5% to 15% of cases are linked to a family history of the disease.

We all know that the sooner a cancer is identified, the sooner treatment can begin and the greater the patient’s chance of surviving, so early detection is surely a vital part of any national strategy to reduce breast cancer deaths. Professor Gareth Evans recently undertook a major UK trial funded by Breast Cancer Now, which provided the strongest evidence yet that women aged 35 to 39 who are at moderate or high risk of developing breast cancer could benefit from annual screening, and that screening those women annually could pick up tumours earlier. The study found that when tumours were picked up through screening, most were smaller and less likely to have spread to lymph nodes than those in women who were not screened. Importantly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) has pointed out, such screenings are an opportunity also to screen for ovarian cancer, which is often linked to the same gene.

We know that women with a family history of breast cancer have a higher risk of developing breast cancer themselves and are more likely to get breast cancer at a younger age. The degree of extra risk varies according to whether breast cancer was diagnosed among someone’s first-degree relatives, such as their parents, siblings or children; their second-degree relatives, such as their grandparents, aunts or uncles, or half-siblings; or multiple family members. Breast cancer risk is also inherited from the father’s side of the family. Familial breast cancer tends to be more aggressive than non-familial breast cancer. Prognosis also appears to be partly heritable: women whose mothers died of breast cancer are more likely to die from it, even adjusting for tumour characteristics. We know that women who have breast cancer in their family are more likely to develop it and more likely to develop its most aggressive forms, and we know that detecting breast cancer early gives women the best possible chance of survival.

Based on a thorough assessment of the available evidence, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—NICE, as we all know it—recommends that women with a confirmed family history of breast cancer should be offered annual mammograms from age 40, and that women at the highest risk may be offered MRI scans from age 30. That one word—“may”—literally means life or death to some women, because not all young women are offered that screening. Despite all the evidence, young women are not getting screened. Not all women with a family history of breast cancer get access to the extra breast screening currently recommended by NICE. Screening can save lives, so why is that happening?

NICE guidelines are not implemented uniformly across the country. We need to tackle that. There is a lack of clarity about the provision of family history clinics. Only some women at the greatest risk receive family history screening though the national breast screening programme. Other women at high risk, and those at moderate risk, may—again, “may”—receive family history screening through local family history services instead. However, some might not receive it at all, and it is those young women that the Bill aims to help.

The inconsistent provision of screening is risking lives. Some young women, because of where they live and the treatments available to them, will have their breast cancer spotted early and treated; some will not. Some will survive; others will not. Imagine having to bury your wife, your daughter or your granddaughter because early screening was not available in their town or area.

In reality, neither I nor the Secretary of State, NICE or the Minister knows the scale of the hole in provision. If the Minister does know, I would be interested to hear it, but everything I am told indicates that there is a lack of national oversight of family history screening for women at all levels of risk, which may result in women not being able to access screening in some areas. We just do not know where or why.

This issue may be exacerbated by the fact that some family history clinics, which assess and support women with a family history of breast cancer, may be at risk of closure. Those clinics are not supported by national funding, and there is lack of clarity about the current governance arrangements for the provision of those services. As a result, some clinical commissioning groups may choose to stop funding family history clinics in their area. I am sure the Minister agrees that that cannot be allowed to happen.

The Bill is intended to strengthen oversight of family history services for women with a family history of breast cancer by introducing a duty on the Secretary of State for Health to ensure the rigorous and transparent implementation of current NICE family history guidelines. The purpose is to ensure that every woman in the country with a family history of breast cancer is able to access services with a proven life-saving benefit, to which they should be entitled regardless of where they live. The Bill would also require NHS England to provide clarity about the current governance arrangements for the provision of services for women with a family history of breast cancer, including the obligations CCGs have for funding family history clinics.

Thanks to Nicola, I have met or corresponded with the people she called her “warriors”. I have been astounded by how they support one another through difficult times, in person, online and in chatrooms, and I was humbled to see so many of them at Nicola’s funeral, still supporting her and one another. They are watching on today, and they want action, so I beg the Minister to support the Bill, to help to deliver Nicola’s law and to help save the lives of thousands of young women in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Andrew Griffiths, Steve Brine, Fiona Bruce, Maria Caulfield, Marion Fellows, Carolyn Harris, Anna Soubry, Craig Tracey and Anne-Marie Trevelyan present the Bill.

Andrew Griffiths accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 413).

Estimates Day

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[7th Allotted Day]

Department for Work and Pensions

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2020, for expenditure by the Department for Work and Pensions:

(1) further resources, not exceeding £48,180,879,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 2154 of Session 2017-19,

(2) further resources, not exceeding £362,104,000 be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £49,265,200,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Jeremy Quin.)

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected either of the amendments listed on the Order Paper.

14:08

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me to lead this debate on the Department for Work and Pensions public spending estimates. In so doing, I shall explain what I think are the purpose and principles of the Department; where I feel that, unfortunately, it is currently failing; and what needs to happen to change that.

Today is about public spending. Most people in the House will know that the Department for Work and Pensions is the largest spending Department of all; it spends around a quarter of the Government’s money. However, although this is an estimates day debate, we should not focus on the money. The money is interesting really only in so far as it is for something—in so far as we spend it for a purpose and we carry out that purpose in accordance with our principles.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has probably noticed that there is nothing in the estimates to help the women born in the early 1950s who lost out on their pensions. Does she agree that there will be a round of estimates coming up shortly, and we would like to know from the Minister what the Government are going to do about that, and whether the Department will include it in its estimates to the Chancellor for a future Budget?

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend makes an effective point—which I will come to—about the position of the WASPI women, born in the 1950s. They dealt with challenges in the labour market that I have never faced. They fought for the changes that my generation benefited from, and at their point of retirement the Government undermined them. I will say why I think that is contrary to the principles on which we operate the welfare state in this country and I thank him for that appropriate intervention.

Before I come to the principles, I shall address the purpose. What is the purpose of all the money spent by the UK’s biggest spending Department? What is it for? The spending has a simple principle—and Beveridge articulated it in his report, which really commenced the modern welfare state in the UK—and that is to smooth incomes. The idea is that we spend to allow people to take money from the system when their income is low and to pay in when their income is high. It is very simple. If we allow people to smooth their potential for getting wages and income over their lifetimes, on average people will be richer than if they have to cope alone in the hard times. If we allow people to use social insurance to smooth their income, we are all better off. We pay in when we can, we take out when we need; that is how it works. It has a simple purpose. How does the system do that? It operates by some simple principles. It is a huge amount of money, but our welfare state adheres to a straightforward and simple principle—the contributory principle, one that any student of Beveridge will know all about. The idea is that we all pay in when we can and we are all entitled to take out when we need.

Why have I made those points about the simple purpose and principles of the welfare state? I do not think that very much has changed since Beveridge’s time when it comes to the fundamental way that the labour market operates and the risks that people face in their lives that will make them poorer if we do not have an effective welfare state. We are still fighting the same evils that Beveridge identified, and the reasons people might not have enough to get by are fundamentally the same as they were when he wrote his report. The one that we all know about is old age, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) has already mentioned. That is why it is right that, in the 10 years since the crash, the incomes of pensioners in our welfare state have—by and large, with one notable, shameful exception—been protected. We have seen pensions keep pace with earnings and with the general movement of our economy. When the economy is growing, pensioners’ incomes have kept pace. We know that the uprating, the increase in spend on pensioners, has protected them from the possibility of poverty. No one wants to see people who have worked hard all their lives go without and struggle with poverty in their old age.

Of course, the WASPI women are an exception to that. The principle that they have paid in and that they should be able to take out in an equitable way has been undermined for them. For the reasons that have already been mentioned, that is shameful and must be changed.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for the way she is introducing the debate. Does she agree that at a time when the Conservative leadership contenders are splurging billions of pounds in spending commitments, not a single penny is available for the WASPI women and that really shows where their priorities lie?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The Conservative leadership election feels like the reversal of politics as I had come to know it. I had always expected that Labour would be on the defensive when it came to public spending. I thought that my party would always have to prove that we were the ones who would deal responsibly with the economy, that we would always be on the defensive and the Tories would always be on the attack. But those competing in the Conservative leadership election seem to want to reverse that principle. They seem to want to be accused of splashing the cash. Given that one of the candidates found nearly £10 billion to be spent on tax cuts, I suggest that the debate should never again be about whether austerity was necessary, but should instead be a simple question of political priorities.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making some powerful points, many of which I agree with, and I am also concerned by some of the pledges in the leadership contest about the spending of taxpayers’ money. What does she think about Labour’s election manifesto pledges of £1 trillion of spending?

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman asks about the 2017 manifesto. I simply remind him that before the publication of the manifestos in that election most people expected the Conservative party to get a stonking great majority so that it could push through its version of Brexit based on the quality of their manifesto as opposed to ours. I point the hon. Gentleman to the historical facts, as it did not turn out at all like that.

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

To return to the point about the WASPI women, I completely accept that we all want to make sure that people have dignity in retirement, but does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the Government’s figures show that reversing the impact of the decision to raise the state pension age in line with rising life expectancy would cost £181 billion? Where on earth would we find such a sum of money?

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman is a fellow member of the Treasury Committee and I thank him for his intervention. That is an interesting forecast. I do not think that dealing with the injustices would cost anything like as much, but if he wishes to have the discussion, we have many hours on the Committee together and I will happily discuss his spreadsheet any time he wishes.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)]

Before my hon. Friend gets to that spreadsheet, she is making an important point. The budget has been brought more into balance by the cuts in welfare benefits, which have been concentrated on families with children. In our constituencies, many people have been pushed into hunger and destitution for the first time in their experience, not because they have lost talent or the ability to manage, but because for the first time in a century we are cutting benefits to the very poorest.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that intervention. He brings me to the point that I was just about to make, which was what Beveridge might have thought of what we have done to family benefits. When we have children, life costs more. Beveridge knew that in the 1930s and 1940s, and family benefits were always designed to be a solid part of the modern welfare state that would help our country rebuild after the second world war. That is also because those benefits rely on the contributory principle. How on earth do we expect to get responsible adults who are able to use their talents for the benefit of our country and get to the point in their lives when they can adequately pay back to the welfare state if children’s ability to grow and learn has been undermined at the very point when they needed the welfare state to pay out for them? We take out when we need, and we pay in when we can. That goes for family benefits along with everything else.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, as I would expect of her. Last week the Scottish Government introduced a new Scottish child payment which, when delivered in full, will mean an extra £10 a week for more than 400,000 children. The Child Poverty Action Group has described it as a “game changer” for tackling child poverty. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is the sort of proposal that this Government should be implementing for the whole of the United Kingdom, and to which the Labour party should commit itself?

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. and learned Lady will know that I believe in the pooling and sharing of resources across the United Kingdom. If the Scottish Government have found evidence that there is a way of aiding children that can work, I will be learning the lessons, but I firmly believe that the way the United Kingdom’s welfare state pools and shares resources is the most powerful tool that we have with which to tackle the child poverty that worries me today.

We know that the projections for child poverty over the next few years are a disgrace. We will see it rise to record highs, and if we do not make a decision and do something about it, it could affect more than 5 million children by 2024. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am not prepared to stand by and see the welfare state that this country has built over many years fail at that level. I am not prepared to see the contributory principle that says that we pay out to people in need so that they can pay in when they can, become fatally undermined by the growing wound in our country that is child poverty.

I should like all Members who are present today to ask themselves a simple question. On the basis of the purpose of the welfare state and the principles by which it operates, is the DWP’s current spending a success? We all know the answer to that question. It stares us in the face when we think about what is going on in our own constituencies, and the people whom we see in our surgeries. It stares us in the face when we walk through the doors of the House of Commons and see the destitution, and when we know that a person died on our own doorstep. It stares us in the face when we hear from the Trussell Trust that last year it handed out 1.6 million food bank parcels.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) made exactly the right point. Do we think that there were 1.6 million incidences of fecklessness? Do we think that there were 1.6 million incidences of people being so unable to deal well enough with their lives that they had to turn to food banks and beg for help? Do we think that there were 1.6 million incidences of error, or mistake, or confusion? Quite clearly not. What we have seen are 1.6 million incidences of injustice and unfairness.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way yet again; she is being very generous.

One of the main contributions to poverty is poverty wages, as a result of which people have been driven to food banks. A couple of months ago, I visited a food bank in my constituency. Think about it: in a semi-rich city like Coventry, 22,000 people used a food bank last year. Does that not tell us a story?

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend has made his point well. We all know that the DWP is failing because we see it every day, but why is that failure happening? I think it is pretty obvious from the DWP’s policies that it has radically misunderstood poverty. While its aims and objectives in dealing with poverty are all absolutely worthwhile and worthy, they will never get to the root cause of it.

The DWP’s policy paper sets out its next steps for action on poverty. It wants to help through the troubled families programme, and it wants to identify people with complex needs. It talks about addiction, and it talks about education. The problem is that while those are factors in people’s lives that are associated with poverty—of course lower educational achievement is a risk for people who grow up in poverty, and of course addiction is a problem in communities that have less wealth—it is possible to do very well at school and still be poor, and it is possible to be poor and not addicted to anything. It is possible for people to have excellent family relationships, to look after each other and be able to take care of their families, but still to suffer the consequences of low incomes, because the root cause of poverty is not any of those other things; it is not having enough money. What my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South said about poverty wages was right, and that is why the DWP must change course.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, and no one would question some of the things that she has said, but does she not understand that when people suffer from addiction—the terrible pain of addiction— they struggle to get into work, and to earn and look after themselves? Addiction is a root cause of poverty. [Interruption.] Of course it is; don‘t be ridiculous.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because he has illustrated exactly the point that I am making. I have every sympathy and every empathy with people who suffer from addiction and associated mental health conditions, but those conditions affect everyone in society. They are not solely about people who are poor. Moreover, there are plenty of people who just do not have enough money, and who do not suffer from any of those problems. The point that I am trying to make is that the DWP is failing because it has missed the central point. The cause of poverty is not having enough money, and it is our duty in the House to do something about it.

[Alex Burghart]

rose—

[Alison McGovern]

If the hon. Gentleman really wants to argue with me, then be my guest.

[Alex Burghart]

I very much want to argue with the hon. Lady. The truth is, is it not, that poverty is a result of some of the problems that people face in society. If those problems are removed, people are considerably less likely to be poor, because they are more likely to be able to work. I have met people who have started out in life from a very good position, but have suffered terrible heroin addiction and have consequently been unable to work. The reason those people have no money is that they have suffered from heroin addiction.

[Alison McGovern]

Let me try this another way. The people whom the hon. Gentleman has mentioned who are suffering from addiction deserve our sympathy, empathy and solidarity, and they deserve help, but so does the kid at school who is working hard, who has great teachers, but who goes home and sees his parents struggle. The cause of poverty is a simple thing: it is not having enough money. It is possible for the Government to have brilliant programmes in all other spheres and still fail to deal with the wound in our society that means people turning up at food banks and children who are unable not to be hungry during the holidays because they can no longer rely on free school meals.

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman, “Ask yourself this question: if we had dealt with every addiction problem in our country, would that necessarily solve the problem of poverty if wages were still too low and this Government were still hellbent on taking money, year after year after year, out of the welfare state which is there to support the family of that child who is working hard at school?”

What, then, has to change? We have to reassess the contributory principle as it affects families, and we have to decide that in this country we will ensure that families can make ends meet. That is why I—along with a number of other Members and the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown—have set out over the summer to try to establish the principles of a programme that could enable them to make ends meet.

I believe that the programme should look like this. Step one must be to end the policies that are breaking the principle of Beveridge’s welfare state. We know what they are. The two-child limit means that 800,000 families with three or more children who are currently receiving tax credit are at risk. While the Government say that the two-child policy will save them billions of pounds, we know that every child matters—every child counts for something—and that is why that policy cannot be allowed to continue. If it does, we know from all the evidence and the child poverty forecasts that it will drive up poverty for children in this country living in a household with three children or more. If anybody thinks that somehow knowing that the Government are going to punish the third child in a family will help to guide families as to family size, I simply say they have probably missed the fundamentals of reproduction. We do not hold children responsible for the actions of their parents, and our welfare state should not do that.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making a very important point extremely well. Does she agree that one of the unbelievable aspects of the two-child cap is that it does not take into account that not everyone who has two children and decides to have a third is on benefits when they make that decision? A family’s circumstances can change overnight through no fault of their own, yet the Government seek to punish them for that.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that important point, and that is the entire point of the welfare state: our circumstances can change overnight through no fault of our own. And the idea that the Government have set up this arrangement of the two-child policy because they want to send some sort of political message to people about having children or not is crazy; there is absolutely no evidence that it works.

The second thing that has to change immediately is the benefits freeze for working-age people, specifically families. We know the cost to families of the four-year freeze that people have already lived through. That should come to an end this year, but who knows—who knows what the next Tory Prime Minister will choose to do; who knows if they will still choose to punish families. But we know that the reality is that working-age families have not had that lock that pensioners have had; they have not had that connection between the wages going up for everybody else in society and the money that they have to support them. It is simply neither fair nor effective to have a welfare state that does not help families grow up with enough to get by. We are simply undermining the ability of our next generation to contribute to the welfare state when it is their turn.

Thirdly, we need to reappraise the welfare state and find a balanced approach of universal benefits and targeted benefits. We do not have time to go into the intricacies of the ways in which universal credit has failed, but we know that it has. We know that the sanctions regime has caused destitution, and we know that so many of the ways in which Universal Credit was supposed to make life easier for people have not turned out to work like that in practice, which is why the Government are yet to deliver the Universal Credit roll-out; we know it and they know it. That is why for the future we need a range of benefits, some of which are simpler to claim, like child benefit. Child benefit is easy. Those who have a child are, by and large, apart from the highest earners, entitled to it; it is easy and straightforward, and it would be an excellent way to stop child poverty rising if we were prepared to invest in child benefit while we also still use targeted means-tested benefits to get money to the poorest.

Finally, we need a mix of the work that the DWP does through the welfare state and through cash transfers to deal with poverty with all the other things that we know help families to get along and move forward, whether that is services for early years, nursery school, childcare or skills development, so that people can move on and move up. We know that the problem is not just low pay; it is also families being able to have enough time to build up their skills so that they can move on to the next job and get higher wages. So we need that balanced approach of universal benefits, targeted benefits and a balanced mix of the welfare state and other services that the Government can provide to help families.

But in the end my point here today is really very simple: the DWP has failed in its purpose of helping people balance their incomes throughout their lives simply because it decided that families in the UK would carry the burden of the cuts they wanted to see to the state. It has failed to adhere to that simple Beveridge principle that we pay in when we can and we take out when we need, because if we cannot fund children who really need help and support, how on earth will they grow up to be able to pay? The DWP under this Conservative Government is a failure; it is time that changed.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. This is a well-subscribed debate, as is the next one. I do not want to impose a formal time limit at this point, but if colleagues could take eight minutes or less that would be very helpful.

14:35

[Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern).

In speaking today I want to commend the excellent work of my local work coaches whom I recently met at the Whitehaven Jobcentre Plus office in Copeland. They are doing a tremendous job in helping many hundreds of people in my constituency into work.

I think back to the time when I owned and managed my own children’s day nursery and remember speaking with women who did not want to work for more than 16 hours a week because it would scupper their benefits. The benefits system was a clear disincentive to work, and that has been one of the greatest changes from the introduction of Universal Credit. Under the previous welfare system people could lose over £9 of every £10 they earned, creating no financial incentive whatever to get up in the morning and go to work.

As my business was looking after other people’s children, I heard the experiences of many parents. Under Universal Credit 85% of childcare costs can now be paid regardless of how many hours a parent works, which is a huge increase in support compared with tax credits. Under the previous system it often made no financial sense to work more than 16 hours a week; now, under Universal Credit, work pays.

The recent decision to remove the two-child limit under Universal Credit for those born before 2017 is welcome. When my four daughters were all aged under five I had to combine my full-time employment with taking care of my young girls. As a direct result of this Government’s intervention a working family with two children can now receive up to £13,000 a year for their childcare costs because we have increased the available support from 70% to 85%.

We must also remember that an extra 15 hours of free childcare has now been available to working parents of three and four-year-olds since September 2017, which is enabling more parents to make work pay. Particularly for women, this makes all the difference; we now have more women in the workplace than ever before—since records began in 1971—which is making a significant difference to families’ take-home pay.

One of the greatest influences on a young person seeking employment themselves is seeing their parents enthusiastically going out to work in the morning and positively speaking about their work when they return home, as I do with my own daughters, their friends and boyfriends. There are 458,000 fewer young people out of work than in 2010, which amounts to a 50% decrease in unemployment, and welfare reform has supported the impressive figure of 1,000 jobs on average being created every day since 2010.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady kindly cite the evidence to support her statement that welfare reforms have actually led to the increase in employment, because I have evidence to show that employment has increased in spite of the welfare reforms?

[Trudy Harrison]

I explained earlier in my speech that previously women in particular were restricting their working hours to 16 hours a week because of the benefit system, and in terms of the evidence the hon. Lady is surely not doubting that the unemployment record is at its lowest since 1971.

Universal Credit is one of the most important reforms the Government are making. I want to see high quality, affordable, flexible childcare in every town and village, and I would like to hear from the Minister what steps he and his Department are taking to make that possible. Certainly the welfare reforms are making it a more achievable goal in my community, and I welcome the Government’s efforts.

14:40

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on her absolutely excellent speech. She set out what social security should be about. It is about the type of society that we want. The key thrust of her message was to ask whether it is acceptable that so many children are living in poverty—one in four currently grow up in poverty, and one in five are in persistent poverty—when we are the fifth richest country in the world. Is this the sort of society we want them to grow up in, when, despite being the fifth richest country in the world, we also have the highest child mortality in western Europe?

We know the causal relationship between poverty and early childhood death. Is this acceptable? To my mind, it is not, and I am sure that many people across the Chamber agree with me. That is why I asked the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) for her evidence. We have to look at the evidence. There will also be issues with addiction, but are we seriously saying that all poverty issues relate to addiction? There is no evidence to support that. I shall get back to the point of whether this poverty is acceptable. If it is not, we need to look at mechanisms that will ensure that in the civilised society that we aspire to lead we have the policy measures to ensure that this does not happen.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Is it acceptable to be in a party that has always left office with unemployment higher than when it entered office, or is it acceptable to be in a party that has delivered record numbers of jobs?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I respond to the hon. Gentleman by asking whether it is acceptable that we have the highest level of in-work poverty and that two thirds of the children living in poverty are from those working families. I throw that back at the Government.

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Lady makes the point that I was about to make, which is that we are in the completely unacceptable situation in which two thirds of the children living in poverty in this country live in households where at least one parent is working. Does she agree that that is not just a failure by the Government to protect those children but an abject failure on their part to protect the welfare state and provide a continuing welfare state that works for the people who need it most?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I could not agree with the hon. Lady more.

I am going to carry on with my questions about what we deem acceptable in our country. Is it acceptable that sick and disabled people are being isolated and excluded across our society? I believe that, in addition to children, it is sick and disabled people who have borne the brunt of this Government’s cuts. That shames us all. Nine out of 10 disabilities and illnesses are acquired. Would we want this for ourselves or for our nearest and dearest? I am sure that the answer is no, so what does that mean for our policies for sick and disabled people? Many of us on both sides of the Chamber do not think that this is acceptable. We need a thriving economy, but the present levels of inequality are stifling the growth that we need—[Interruption.] That is evidence based. I can provide evidence for the fact that inequality is stifling growth in the economy.

We need a social security system that is there for all of us. I would like to see our social security system held in the same esteem that we have for our NHS. It should be there for each and every one of us, providing dignity and security in our retirement and the support we need if we become sick or disabled or if we fall out of work. Let us face it: with the current flexibility in employment, people are going in and out of work, and the system needs to be able to reflect that. It also needs to be able to protect us from poverty, because that is what a civilised society does. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South said, this should be about smoothing out our incomes so that we do not have to be plunged into poverty when we experience extreme events. A decent social security system is a vital weapon for tackling the poverty and inequality that are now rampant across the UK.

We know that, although work and pensions spending has increased since 2010, working-age support has actually been reduced by £30 billion because of the decisions that the Government have made. We also know that those savings are set to increase even further to £38 billion by the end of the forecast period in 2023-24. These figures should include the effect of the measures announced in the 2018 Budget, which included annual spending of £1.9 billion by 2023 on universal credit. Unfortunately, although some people have benefited from universal credit, 3 million people will still be worse off under it. As I mentioned in Treasury questions this morning, 87% of all disabled people will not benefit from those Budget measures and will remain worse off under universal credit, alongside 640,000 self-employed households and 475,000 working lone-parent households.

As my hon. Friend so eloquently put it, we have seen the rise and rise of food banks and an increase in in- work poverty. We know that 4 million sick and disabled people are living in poverty, as are 330,000 more older people. I mentioned the stifling effect that this is having on the economy. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s own model has shown that the independent effect of austerity has been to stifle economic growth by at least £100 billion in 2018-19, which is the equivalent of £3,600 per household. That is my evidence to the House.

I have mentioned the human toll of these policies. In Work and Pensions questions yesterday, I mentioned Amanda, a lone parent who was pregnant and had significant mental health issues. She had her universal credit claim closed in the final weeks before she was about to deliver her child. She did not know why this had happened, but it was revealed that it was because she had not undertaken an independent review. I am pleased that the Minister said that he would take the matter up, but let us just imagine if this happened to us. How would we feel if we suddenly had our income ripped away from us and we did not know what was happening, just as we were about to have a child? This is simply unacceptable.

We know that, between 2013 and 2018, 60 disabled people a month died after their personal independence payment claims were rejected. Many others have died after being found fit for work. A Government’s first duty is to keep their people safe, and that includes their vulnerable citizens. They are failing to do this. Poverty and inequality are political choices. Many of us have made suggestions on how we can tweak the current social security system, but I believe that we need a radical transformation. As my hon. Friend said, we need a new social contract with the British people, built on the Beveridge principles, to define a 21st century social security system that treats its citizens with dignity and respect and protects them from poverty, destitution and even death.

14:48

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on securing this important debate. It is always good to have the opportunity to debate the vital work of the DWP.

The hon. Lady set us a really good challenge because—I hope I have got this right—she was basically asking, “What is the DWP for?” She articulated well Beveridge’s aspirations in the creation of the welfare state, but in addition to what she said about ensuring the smoothing of income and providing a good safety net for people when they need it and for those who are unable to work, the DWP is also about promoting the health and wellbeing of people in employment. It is that important part of the DWP’s work that I will spend some time discussing today, because it seldom gets debated in the House.

The health of the nation’s workers has never been more important. Modern society and the world of work are changing rapidly, bringing new challenges for our physical and mental health. We all spend at least a third of our lives at work, so employers have an important role to play to help workers stay healthy. Fulfilling and meaningful work can be a huge source of wellbeing and having a supportive employer can make a real difference to someone grappling with a physical or mental health condition. Crucially, four in five UK workers say that support from their employer could help them to recover quicker from an illness. Much is being done by employers but, of course, there is so much more that we can all do together.

Recent research conducted by the John Lewis Partnership revealed that, by working together, Government and industry can unlock £38.1 billion for the UK economy by 2025 through fast access to psychological services and physiotherapy for employees grappling with a physical or mental health condition. We know that the main two reasons for people falling out of work is poor mental health or a musculoskeletal condition.

The Working Well coalition is a new and growing group of MPs, charities, employers and think-tanks, and together we are committed to do more to improve the health of the nation’s workers. To achieve that, we all need to play our part. We need businesses to take a leadership role in promoting good physical and mental health at work, and I saw during my time at the DWP what some of the UK’s best employers are doing, supported by the Health and Safety Executive. Business can be a real force for good in society, and we want to do more to support other employers, large and small. We want to galvanise others behind the business case for action and to work in partnership with our public services to promote a healthy society.

The Government have an important enabling role to play to make free occupational health services for workers a non-taxable benefit in kind to promote investment from employers. Currently, such services are subject to employment taxes at an effective rate of 40%. Government and employers need to explore and draw together practical advice on physical and mental health to help employers, building on existing good practice. Many employers want to invest in health and wellbeing, but they just do not know where to start.

The Cornwall and Isles of Scilly local enterprise partnership has started a beacon project, backed by £500,000 of DWP investment. It was launched last September at Cornwall’s GrowthFest, and it aims to provide businesses with tailor-made support to enable them to build inclusive workforces. The Evident Agency is developing a scalable digital project that will deliver advice and ongoing support for businesses, working with the Cornwall growth hub and other partners to provide a single point of contact for employers developing an inclusive work place.

With record employment, many businesses in my constituency and across the country are struggling to recruit. We want to make it easier for businesses both to find the right person and to support existing employees who may have a disability or long-term health condition. In developing a digital solution, Evident Agency has engaged with several local businesses through surveys and face-to-face interviews to explore how businesses respond to mental health and disability in the workplace. It is clear that no two businesses are the same and that a one-size-fits-all approach simply does not work. Navigating businesses through the range of advice and support and following through with ongoing support is key. Developing a peer to peer network will be part of the solution, as will the support that large businesses could give to small businesses in their supply chain.

I welcome the recent announcement made by the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions of a consultation on new measures to help employers better support people with health conditions in work. Much-needed reforms of statutory sick pay will enable it to reach those on the lowest incomes, to be more flexible, and to offer the support that people need to help them return safely to work. The Government propose to extend occupational health so that more employers are able to offer the service, and I hope that my suggestions about changing the tax system to incentivise those changes will be taken into consideration as part of that consultation, because this is the perfect opportunity to spark a revolution in workplace health and wellbeing.

A healthy society underpins a healthy economy, and we hope that this can be the start of a new dynamic partnership between the Government, employers and charities to support the physical and mental health of our 32.7 million workers and, most importantly, to close the employment gap for people with disabilities and health conditions who really want to work and play their full part in society. Surely that is a goal that everyone across the House can unite in achieving.

14:56

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I welcome this opportunity to scrutinise the DWP’s spending, because when I sit in my surgery, week after week, listening to the stories of people living in poverty and struggling to survive while facing a continual battle with the benefits system, I find myself wondering just where nearly a quarter of all Government spending is going. It is certainly not reaching the people who need it most in my constituency. People have had overpayments, underpayments, long initial waiting periods, inaccessible and complex online forms that lead to uncompleted claims, a lack of support with claims, and cruel disability benefits tests, with fines consistently being overturned at appeal.

We have had plenty of debates about universal credit, and it is not working. The five-week wait for initial payment is driving people into poverty, debt and rent arrears, forcing them to turn to food banks to survive. We have already heard about the number of people using food banks. In my constituency, like everywhere else in the country, the numbers are going up year on year at an alarming rate. Despite the Government’s claim that nobody will be worse off under universal credit, we now know, thanks to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that 1.9 million adults will be at least £1,000 worse off.

While the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report at the start the year upheld the Government claim that 1 million ESA households will, on average, receive an extra £110 a month, it also showed that exactly the same number of ESA households will lose, on average, £217 a month. It is no wonder, therefore, that the UN special rapporteur, Professor Philip Alston, accused Ministers of window dressing to minimise the political fallout. That is both damning and shaming.

I have spoken on many occasions about the cruel, unfair disability benefits tests that my constituents have to go through, and for what? Record numbers of people are winning appeals against the Department, and it just looks like the whole process is a stick to beat people with. As we have heard, more than 70% of personal independence payment and employment and support allowance appeals will find in favour of the claimant. One of my constituents was assessed five times in eight years of being on ESA, and despite being found fit for work each time, they won every time on appeal. How flawed must the assessment process be to be so consistently wrong? How can the cost of defending five separate appeals be justified when the decision is the same each time?

More than 16,000 appeals have overturned a PIP decision in the first three months of this year, and nearly three quarters of the 22,000 that went through a tribunal also ruled against the DWP. Waiting times for a PIP appeal are coming up to a year in my constituency—nearly a year in which some of the most vulnerable people in our society are denied the financial support that they need. Things can get worse, because if they have a Motability vehicle, they can lose that as well. I met someone last week who clearly could not get to her job on public transport, but she now faces losing her car due to a PIP assessment. I have little doubt that she will win her appeal, but what consolation will that be if she loses her job in the meantime?

[Alison McGovern]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this poor decision making fatally undermines the relationship between the citizen and the state, and that it must make his constituents wonder what kind of country we live in?

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for her intervention. I do sometimes wonder what kind of country we live in when vulnerable people feel the cards are so stacked against them that it is not even worth their while to appeal. Those are the people who come to see me. I do not know what happens to the people who are so beaten down by the system that they just give up, which I feel is the unintended consequence—or possibly the intended consequence—of this policy time after time.

We know that the cost of successful PIP appeals was £27 million last year. ESA is not included in that figure, but 74% of those claims were successful, too. Let us not forget the figures I uncovered towards the end of last year, which show that the Department is not even turning up to four in five appeal hearings. We know what would happen if my constituents did not turn up to four in five appointments with the DWP: they would be sanctioned straightaway.

I also hear from parents whose children are not eligible for free school meals because their household income is just a little too high, and they are struggling to provide their children with a school lunch because they cannot afford it. Many of these families are struggling to make ends meet.

We now come across parents who are eligible for help but who are not getting it due to the complicated application process and the long waiting times. I have constituents who, in the period before the first universal credit payment is made, are desperate for support but are told that they are not eligible for free school meals. Surely we can do this better and provide eligibility for free school meals when the universal credit application is made, rather than waiting until the first payment comes through.

Briefly, on access to benefits for people at the end of life, the current special rules for terminal illness—SRTI—exclude many people with terminal illnesses. I am meeting the Minister next week to discuss this, and I hope we have a constructive conversation, but I raise it now so that people are aware of some of the difficulties and of the money and time being wasted on inappropriate and unnecessary assessments.

Only 45% of people with motor neurone disease are claiming personal independence payment under SRTI. The majority of people in that situation are still using the standard claims route, which is inappropriate for their situation. They are required to fill in a long form, attend a face-to-face assessment and then wait weeks before the benefits are received.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his speech. Is he aware of Social Security Scotland’s plans to ensure that all medical evidence is available to decision makers at the application stage, so that a correct decision can be taken without the need for often demeaning, demoralising and horrible assessment processes such as the one he describes? Will he support my call for the UK Government to follow Scotland’s lead?

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Gentleman makes a helpful suggestion. Certainly those who have, by definition, a very short time to get these matters sorted due to terminal illness should have as much of the process done at an early stage to avoid such difficulties.

It is highly insensitive that people who have been diagnosed with what can be a devastating condition that will end their life, possibly within 12 months, have to face this extra hoop-jumping when they should be focusing on spending what time they have left with their loved ones.

The majority of people with motor neurone disease are awarded the enhanced rate of PIP anyway, so we need to make it easier for them to claim through SRTI instead of the standard route, which many are currently going down. There are a number of helpful suggestions that we can discuss with the Minister next week.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) spoke passionately and eloquently about the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. She rightly drew attention to the scandal, which will not go away. The WASPI women are there, and they are growing in number. She is right that, while the Tory leadership candidates continue to spaff cash up the wall with spending promises on tax cuts for the most well off in society, for big corporations and for whatever else they decide when they wake up in the morning, it is damning that not one penny has been committed in the leadership hustings to the WASPI women.

Ultimately, it comes down to priorities, and it is clear that WASPI women are not a priority for this Government and will not be a priority for the new Prime Minister, either. The hardship, the injustice and the erosion of the contributory principle that underpins the welfare state are clearly not a priority for this Government, and it is to their shame that they continue to ignore this campaign in the face of overwhelming evidence that a real injustice is being done.

15:05

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

It is a privilege to take part in today’s debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on opening it. This is an important issue, and we all know that the DWP goes to the heart of so many of our constituents’ lives.

I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), to the Front Bench. He has done important work on all the issues surrounding bereaved parents over the past few weeks, and I think everyone on both sides of the House welcomes the Government’s new position.

Over the two years I have been an MP, I have seen at first hand the hard work, considerable commitment and personal dedication put in by the staff at Loftus jobcentre. I have seen it in the context of the redundancies at the Boulby potash mine in my constituency, which were caused by the move from mining potash to mining polyhalite. The way in which the emergency response team moved, and the work it did to support the workforce into productive and fulfilling jobs was impressive.

That speaks well for the professionalism of the men and women in our jobcentres, many of whom are sometimes unfairly miscast as people who either do not know or do not care about the lives of the people they help—that is certainly not my experience. I do not recognise the Opposition’s characterisation of so much of the front-facing work of the DWP. I tend to find that, if anything, the jobcentre workforce are unbelievably adept, graceful and kind.

[Alison McGovern]

To be clear, not one thing that I or any Opposition Member said criticised the work of the people on the frontline for the DWP. It is the Conservative party’s policies relating to the DWP that are at issue.

[Mr Clarke]

I would not ascribe it to the hon. Lady’s speech, but I have heard speeches in this place from Labour Members that have come very close to blurring the line between the policy and the people. There is sometimes a real determination to make people afraid of their experience of programmes such as universal credit by stoking up concerns, rather than pointing out the progress on rolling out this fundamentally important reform, which originally enjoyed the Opposition’s support—mainly because it is the right thing to do.

The hon. Lady rightly referred to the Beveridge principle of a welfare state that acts as a strong safety net to help those in need when the chips are down. That is not what we had under the last Labour Government, when the cost of welfare benefits rose by some £84 billion—an enormous sum of money. Welfare has to be fair to the taxpayer, as well as to recipients. This is an important issue. The balance was lost, and the public knew it was lost.

That was one reason, among many, why we won the 2010 general election. There was a widespread perception that the welfare system had strayed from its moorings and was no longer necessarily about helping people into work, or helping them to stay in work longer. For too many, it allowed a lifestyle based on the trap of dependency—my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) referred to that trap. For too many people, the logical incentive created by the system was not to work, or not to work more hours. There was nothing kind or moral about that. It was, in fact, profoundly the opposite, as the system did not help people take the true route out of poverty, which is, of course, work.

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman is being characteristically generous with his time. Will he answer a simple question? How does the two-child policy provide an incentive to work when children, by definition, cannot work?

[Mr Clarke]

Child benefit is, obviously, a sensitive issue, but the point is that a family not in the welfare system, perhaps just above the entitlement level for welfare support, has to make rational choices in their life. All families have to make rational choices in their life about the size of the family they can afford. Lots of people find it wrong that the system would allow people to have any number of children, whereas those people not in the system have to make budgetary choices. That is not a principle I am uncomfortable defending.

Let us go to the wider point, as we need to go back to first principles on this. I do not doubt the sincere differences we have and Labour Members’ concerns, but they have to justify the fact that under their Government 1.4 million people spent most of 2000 to 2010 trapped on out-of-work benefits, with some receiving more than the average wage. Some 50,000 households were allowed to claim benefits worth more than £26,000 a year. I represent a low-wage constituency in the north of England and I simply cannot justify a situation whereby the logical thing was for people to stay earning that amount of benefits rather than to be in work. That has profound and adverse social consequences.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I think what we are trying to do with this debate is look at where we are now. The hon. Gentleman is right, and we did not get everything wrong, but what we need to do is look at the system now. It is clearly not fit for purpose. The way he was talking made it sound as though he also had concerns about the number of children, and the number of sick and disabled people, living in poverty. I am sure he was not suggesting that all the sick and disabled people who require support are shirkers or scroungers, and that there is nothing wrong with them. So what do we do now?

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right; of course, there are lots of people who, for reasons that are totally out of their control, need our support and compassion. No Conservative Member would argue with that. I would argue that we get more money for those people by ensuring that the system has the resource available to devote to those families and those individuals, rather than to those who do not need that support and need to be in work. We have seen a record number of people come into work. We are seeing record female employment. We are seeing a record number of disabled people move into work. We should celebrate all those things. Just as those on the other side are quick to point out the problems with the system—and any system run by Government that is as Byzantine as the welfare system will always throw up hard cases that need to be looked at carefully—we also need to recognise the considerable social policy success that has been represented by helping the equivalent of the entire population of Wales, more than 3 million people, move into work during this Government’s time in office. That is a really important shift and we do not want to see this go backwards because we have changed the incentives in the system.

That is one reason I was so profoundly opposed to the amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) in this debate. I do not think it was appropriate for this debate and these estimates to be drawn into the context of the Brexit debate. That was profoundly unwelcome. No matter which side of the House someone sits on, we have to try to keep certain aspects of the debate separate. It will be interesting to hear from the shadow Front Bencher what the Labour party’s position would have been had the amendment been accepted and what it would be were a future such attempt to be made. It is important to put on the record that there are some aspects of this debate that are simply more important than the issue of the UK’s membership of the European Union—or not. In truth, the two things are fundamentally discrete.

15:13

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I am glad to be speaking for the Scottish National party in this debate, because it is an important issue on which I have campaigned for some time, particularly in relation to the two-child limit. I will discuss that in my speech.

It is perfectly clear that the welfare state is no longer a safety net for those who need it. It is a labyrinthine maze of bureaucracy, traps and loopholes to cheat people out of ever feeling safe or supported. The safety net is full of holes. This Chancellor, like the one before him—and, no doubt, the one to follow—has attempted to balance the books on the back of sick, disabled and vulnerable people. Even by the UK Government’s own flawed criteria, they have abjectly failed. The IFS has said that the Chancellor’s plan of running a budget surplus by the mid-2020s is no longer a sensible proposition. Public spending was as high in 2018 as it was in 2008, but what have we got to show for it? We have a rise in child poverty, in homelessness, and in food bank usage. In the fifth richest country in the world, that is a shameful situation. The two-child policy alone is expected to push thousands of families into poverty by the end of this Parliament. The Child Poverty Action Group has said that if we were to intentionally design a policy to put children into poverty, we could not do much better than that one.

The report “All Kids Count: the impact of the two-child limit after two years” was issued last week by the Church of England, CPAG, Women’s Aid, Turn2us and the Refugee Council, with support also from the Interlink Foundation, representing the Orthodox Jewish Community. It paints a stark picture: of families forced into poverty, debt and borrowing money from friends and family. I have to say that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) is absolutely incorrect in so many of his assertions on this policy, because it will affect families in so many different ways and it absolutely traps them in a situation where they cannot work their way out of poverty. I commend this report to him, because it has modelled this. I recommend that he read all of its details, because it makes it absolutely clear that families cannot compensate for the two-child poverty through work.

The report gives the example of a single parent with three children working 16 hours a week at the national living wage—the pretendy “living wage”—and says that she

“cannot ever compensate for the loss of a child element by increasing her hours, if she incurs childcare costs from doing so (because these are never covered in full by universal credit). Only if she can access free childcare (e.g. by using help from family members in addition to the free entitlement for 2-4 year-olds), can she compensate for the loss, but she would still have to more than double her hours from 16 to 40 per week.”

This is also true for families where there is a couple and for others: nobody can work their way out of the poverty caused by this policy.

The findings from a survey done on the two-child limit by those who are claiming are stark—the impact on those families is dreadful and in some cases it results in family breakdown. That ought to concern the Tories, who seem to like to maintain the family in all circumstances. I will read out some of the quotes. One read:

“I’ve recently split with my long-term partner and father of my four children. When I had my children, I did not intend to be a single parent— and now that I am, I feel like I’m being penalised by the government.”

Another read:

“My partner became ill and unable to work due to disability and I’m now at home having to care for him and our four children. Me and my partner are literally not eating at all during the day to feed the children.”

I would like to see the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland try to justify why that is fair, because it is absolutely not.

The report shows 95% of families who responded reporting that the two-child limit has affected their ability to pay for basic living costs, with 88% saying it had affected their ability to pay for food, 88% saying it had affected their ability to pay for clothing, 71% saying it had affected their ability to pay for gas and electric—and the list goes on. This is absolutely catastrophic for these families and they cannot do anything to get out of the situation.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing that report to the House. Does she not agree that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland said, life is full of unforeseen and unintended occurrences and the welfare state is simply there to help us out with all of them?

[Alison Thewliss]

None of the families in this report could really have predicted their circumstances when they had their children, and this has been acknowledged by the Government, because they said that if the child was born after the cut-off date in April 2017, it would be unfair to bring this in. They have acknowledged that it is unfair for some families but not for all families, but if they acknowledge it is unfair for some, they should just scrap this brutal policy for all and for ever.

Despite all this, families are trying to cut back. They are trying their best to get by. One parent said:

“We try our best to make sure

the children

“are well fed and pick up the leftovers if they leave anything, or just toast.”

So families—parents—are living on just toast, at best. What kind of society is this that the Minister presides over? Families are not able to pay their bills and are going into arrears—into debt—which means they risk going into homelessness and losing the roof over their head. They are relying on other members of the family to try to support them. One woman said:

“At 36 years old you shouldn’t have to rely on your mum and dad”

to feed the children. People are going into debt because they are not able to pay for things because there is no spare money. They are going into debt on credit cards and with the other types of lenders. Families are so far away from being able to pay for these things that it puts tremendous financial strain on them.

The two-child limit also has an impact on other members of the family. Other children feel as though they are losing out because of their baby brother or sister. That is really quite sad. It gives me a lot of pain to think that children feel as though they are losing their ability to go out and have fun, to live their lives, to go swimming or to do anything else they want to do, because their parents were unfortunate enough to have a third child. That is absolutely appalling, and it affects families’ mental health and wellbeing, as I have said.

The two-child limit has lots of other impacts. There is good evidence from the survey—which should concern all Members, regardless of their opinions on the policy—that families are choosing to abort healthy babies because they are worried about how the two-child limit is going to affect them. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) shakes her head on the Front Bench, but there is evidence. She should read the report and do something about it.

There are also issues for women who have come through refuges—through domestic abuse—and who have to use the rape clause to claim for a third child. Nobody should have to fill in a form to prove that they were raped, just to put food on the table. That is unacceptable, and the Government’s policy is despicable. Last year, 190 women were forced to fill out the form. The figures are not yet out, so I do not know how many women are affected this year, but my bet is that it will be more.

The impact of the rape clause is such that those 190 women are not even all the women who are likely to be eligible for support. There is in the report a good and heartbreaking case study about a woman called Sabrina. The name has been changed, but it says Sabrina in the report so that is the name I shall use. It says:

“Sabrina had been experiencing abuse at the hands of her husband for almost a decade when she and her two young children came to a Women’s Aid member refuge in England. Whilst in the refuge, Sabrina discovered that she was pregnant…Sabrina wept at the news—tears of anxiety and worry about how she was going to cope financially when she eventually moved out of the refuge. Sabrina knew that, because of the two-child limit, she would struggle to bring a third baby into the world. She couldn’t bear the thought of having to tell the government how the child was conceived—out of abuse and fear—in order to get the money she was entitled to. Soon, she packed her family’s bag with the few belongings they had and returned to the home she had shared with her abuser, utterly defeated.”

That is not a situation that this Government should be putting women in. They should be helping women out of abusive relationships, not sending them straight back to their abusers for fear of losing out. I do not want to hear about how a form can be changed and what could happen to make the process better; it should not exist at all. There should be a universal support system for everybody, and that is why it is such a fundamentally important issue.

Although I know that others wish to speak, I could go on all afternoon about the injustices of the two-child policy, because it also affects religious minorities who cannot or will not use contraception or abortion, and it affects refugee families, who come here, wait a long time to be processed, and then find that they are not able to get the entitlements that they had hoped to get to support themselves and their families. The impact of the policy is devastating, and it disproportionately affects families who are already in work. The Minister should look at the report, look at the evidence and scrap the two-child policy, and the rape clause that stands part of it, immediately.

15:23

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

It is an honour to have the opportunity to talk in this important estimates day debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on introducing the debate.

Record and rising employment is the central fact of the Government’s economic record. It is sometimes easy to brush over the fact that we now have the highest rate of employment in this country than at any time since the early 1970s. That is not only important on an economic level, although obviously it has wonderful economic benefits for the country, but extremely important on a social level and a personal level, because of the way it benefits families and communities and gives people opportunity and optimism that they otherwise might not have.

For four years before I came to this place, it was very much my privilege to serve as the director of policy at the Centre for Social Justice, which is a think-tank that looks at the root causes of poverty in the UK. That background is what lies behind my exchange with the hon. Member for Wirral South earlier. One can of course say that the root cause of poverty is people not having enough money. It is true that poverty is people not having enough money, but it is unquestionably the case that the reason why some people do not have any money is that they do not have a job in order to earn money, and that the reason why some people—not everybody at all—are unemployed is that something has gone badly wrong in their life, and that thing needs to be corrected with the help of public services, with the support of their family and with their own personal determination. That must always be an absolutely essential part of any welfare policy, which is why it is so important that the significant changes that have been introduced in the Department for Work and Pensions have been coupled to the work of the troubled families programme in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. It is by helping people to overcome some of the root causes of poverty that we can help more people to move into the workplace and so help to support themselves and their families.

There is a group of people who are lucky enough and fortunate enough to come from stable homes, to get a decent education and not to suffer from addiction or any such problems, who still find it difficult to make ends meet, which is why it is extraordinarily important that any Government have an economic policy that generates jobs and drives up wages. The Government have been extraordinarily successful, without parallel, in the creation of jobs. Life has undoubtedly been harder in the generation of higher wages, but it feels like in recent months—over the past 15 months, I think—we have turned a corner on that score and, for the first time since the financial crisis in 2008, we are starting to see wages rise above inflation. Ultimately, that is excellent news for people who are moving into the jobs market and for people who are starting off on low salaries.

It must be remembered that none of that success was predicted by commentators before the 2010 general election. I remember in 2009 listening to a Bank of England economist forecast that the incoming Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to deal with unemployment of more than 5 million. In 2011, he repeated that the policies of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition would unquestionably lead to record unemployment and a massive social security problem. That simply did not happen, because of the business-friendly policies that the Government adopted, which increased investment and business growth and saw employment rise in very many parts of the country.

It was a pleasure to sit and listen to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke). I do not believe it can be an accident or a coincidence that his constituency has not traditionally had a Conservative MP, yet after seven years of Conservative employment growth in his area, it elected a Conservative. After seven years, following a major economic meltdown under the previous Labour Government, the Conservatives delivered the job growth in his area that Labour had been incapable of doing for the 13 years that it was in power. We see it not just in Middlesbrough, but in a whole range of seats from Mansfield to Stoke-on-Trent. This new era of Conservative representation in parts of the midlands and the north is a result of this policy, which has helped people to find jobs and improve their lives and the lives of their families. This has been termed the British jobs miracle, because unemployment is now at about 3.8% in the UK, compared with 7.5% in the euro area.

[Neil Gray]

I do not doubt that properly paid work is the best route out of poverty, but when will the hon. Gentleman’s so-called jobs miracle extend to children living in poverty? How can he explain what is currently going on when we see that two thirds of all children living in poverty do so in a working household?

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point, but, as I have already said, we had a long period of employment, but with little or no wage increases. We have now started to come out of that period. What he will see is that, if wages and wage growth are maintained in the months and years ahead—as I have no doubt that they will be—we will start to see the number of young people in poverty go down. We will see that their parents have more money because they are in work and their wages are rising above inflation. I am sure that he would accept that point.

[Neil Gray]

Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that, while we wait, children remain in poverty? What are his Government doing? They are continuing to cut universal credit, which is supposed to help move these families away from poverty. Why is this continuing to happen? Why do they have to wait all this time for the never-never of jam tomorrow?

[Alex Burghart]

I do not believe that it is correct to say that the Government are taking money out of universal credit. I am sure the hon. Gentleman remembers the previous Budget when a considerable amount of additional money was put into universal credit. I think that he is, perhaps, slightly out of date on that score.

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman has obviously missed the fact that working age benefits have been frozen for four years. That is a real terms cut. Will he just explain to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who talked about a single parent with three children who simply cannot put any more hours a day into her working life, how, if benefits stay frozen, people are supposed to see their incomes rise and their children lifted out of poverty?

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point about the benefits freeze. That is something to which I intend to return at the end of my remarks. It is unquestionably the case that the benefits freeze has hit people—and hit some people very hard. She is aware of why the benefits freeze was needed: it was needed because of the disastrous condition in which her party left this country’s finances when it left office in 2010.

The DWP is playing its role in helping people back to work and helping them to find, sustain and progress in work. If Members talk to work coaches across the country, they will find that those coaches now have the tools and a service at their disposal to help them to form a working relationship with the people they are seeking to help. They understand that people who come into the jobcentre are, effectively, in work to find work. The agreement of claimant commitments between the jobseeker and the jobcentre creates an environment in which both the work coaches and the people with whom they are working can get results. No one who has spoken to work coaches across the country can doubt in any way that this has been substantial improvement.

Universal credit, as it is rolled out and improved, is helping to make work pay. It has overcome the terrible problems of the 16-hour cut-off that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison). It has helped to overcome these crazy marginal tax rates that popped up at different points in the system. Obviously, it is being rolled out in a test and learn environment. As it is tested, so DWP has learned, which means that a range of improvements have been made.

As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), who is no longer in his place, I was particularly pleased that we managed to work with the Government to scrap the seven waiting days, to ensure that people received their money sooner, to see advances of up to 100% on full monthly payments to claimants, and to develop the landlord portal to make it much easier for housing benefit to be sent to landlords and so on and so forth. These are important changes, but I have no doubt that there are still additional beneficial changes to be made. There is further to go—much further to go.

The hon. Member for Wirral South mentioned the benefit freeze. I very much hope that, in the comprehensive spending review at the end of this year, the benefits freeze is ended and the headroom that the Chancellor has built up is put to good use.

11:30

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate; I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) for bringing it to the House and for beginning so powerfully.

I want to speak about not just the amount of money in the system, but the impact of our benefits system on a whole range of people including disabled people, people who have children, pensioners and people who are unable to work, because it seems to them that they are being punished for being poor and for being unable to work from the very start of making an application for benefits. For example, the personal independence payment form is 33 pages long and includes very cryptic questions. People know that they are supposed to answer those questions in certain ways, but they just do not have the guidance on how to do so.

People have to claim for universal credit online, which means they need to have computer skills, a computer and access to broadband to make a claim and to manage that claim on an ongoing basis—to retain control over their finances and their benefits. We have seen that a majority of people need support to make their universal credit claim and to be supported throughout the process. And it is not just an online claim form, but effectively a 10-stage process whereby the claimant has to make a phone call, complete a claim form online, go along to a jobcentre, provide 14 bits of documentation and evidence, return to sign their work conditionality agreement, and log on to their journal on a mobile phone or portable device. That is a huge amount of bureaucracy for anyone to have to undergo—much less somebody who is not used to IT systems and who, in an area such as mine, has to spend £7 each way to get a bus to the jobcentre and has to meet those costs upfront before they can even start claiming them back.

Someone applying for the personal independence payment needs to go for an assessment, and we have heard so much about those assessments, particularly those of us who are members of the Work and Pensions Committee. I heard from a group of women who were survivors of sexual abuse, who were assessed on how that abuse continued to affect them years later. They found the whole process absolutely terrifying, as they had to attend cold, informal assessment centres that were often in a tower block in the middle of a city, but away from public transport routes.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, we are seeing the roll-out of the horror story that the hon. Lady has mentioned. Statistics published in February this year show that there have been 193,000 applications for PIP, 32% of which were turned down. The resulting appeal from 50,000 turned-down applications has cost us £5 million to process. It is a disgrace.

[Ruth George]

I agree; it is a disgrace, and not just when it comes to the number of applications being turned down.

Over a year ago, the Government signed up to the assessments being recorded so that their quality could be improved, but we have seen no progress in that regard. People in my constituency want to see a video recording of their assessment because they are so terrified after previous experiences. For example, people who are suicidal have been asked why they did not go ahead with committing suicide. They are now terrified of attending another assessment for disability benefits and are desperate for their assessment to be recorded. However, in order to have the assessment recorded, people have to phone up three days in advance and get specific recording equipment that can produce two recordings at the same time. These pieces of equipment are rare nowadays, as cassette tapes are required to produce such recordings. This is the current guidance from the DWP. People have to source that equipment in order to have their assessments recorded, well over a year on from the Government’s commitment that they would ensure that that was the case in every assessment where people wished for it.

Not only do people have to undergo these cold, terrifying and impersonal assessments where they are concerned that they are being marked down—the Minister appears to disagree—but I have heard from women who say they have been curled up on the floor crying at having to remember their sexual abuse, with the assessor not even looking at them but simply repeating the question. So I am sorry, but I do not accept that those assessments are personal and that they take people’s circumstances into account, from the accounts I have been given that are so distressing to hear.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) is right to say that 32% of PIP applications are turned down. That is actually better than in my part of the country, where 46% of applications from those moving on from DLA have been turned down. Some of these people go on to mandatory reconsideration. We used to have 80% targets for the refusal of mandatory reconsideration. I would love to hear from the Minister what the current rate of refusal is. With regard to the tribunals, although 74% of people who undergo them are successful, they take 48 weeks to take place—over a year on from the start of the process.

People are absolutely terrified, all the way through, of losing their benefits. In too many cases, they are having to go to the jobcentre and claim universal credit if they cannot access their employment and support allowance any more, and then being deemed fit for work. Doctors have been written to and told that they cannot sign people who are sick off work any more—that the DWP will not accept their professional medical judgment because its assessors have deemed people fit for work. One of my constituents who was going through the process of appeal was forced back into work, and, on the first day back, suffered a heart attack and died. My constituent and his wife and family cannot get that life back, but we can seek to improve this system that does so much damage to so many people.

Even if people on benefits end up being successful in getting through a tribunal, the amount of benefit that they are on is reduced. Under universal credit, they have to wait at least five weeks in order to get their first proper payment. Yes, they can get an advance of that payment, but they have to weigh it up—do they want to spend the next 12 months in debt because they are having that advance payment deducted from their already low amount of universal credit, or do they try to muddle through? People end up getting into debt with family and friends or with loan sharks and online loan organisations. We have heard that 3 million households are still worse off under universal credit. Despite that, local housing allowance is meeting only 3% of all market rents in many areas, including some in my own constituency, so people are seeing a reduction in their benefit. They are having to make up their rent because local housing allowance does not meet it, and over half of universal credit claimants are having deductions made from them as well.

It is no wonder that people end up in poverty. Some of my constituents end up with just £20 a week to pay all their bills. As if that is not enough, people on universal credit are being hit more and more with civil penalties of £50 for being late in supplying information or late for an appointment. Answers to parliamentary questions that I tabled show that nearly £400,000 of such penalties has been passed on to debt collectors by the DWP in the past year. These are people who are already very poor. They are already suffering from having a penalty imposed on them, and then they are having to pay debt collectors the £135 fee that they charge on top of trying to seek the £50 fee. How is this being fair to people who are poor? How is this supporting people back into work? It is no wonder that we have seen the number of people visiting food banks rising, homelessness rising, and in-work poverty rising.

I could say much more as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on universal credit: time and again, we hear about the problems with the system from fantastic advisers who, day in day out, try to support people. In many cases, those advisers—Citizens Advice, Derbyshire welfare rights—have to come to us as constituency MPs to try to sort out problems that they are not empowered to sort out on people’s behalf.

I am sorry to say that my advice agents across Derbyshire are having to come to me to see whether I can help constituents in other parts of the county whose MPs refuse to help them. It is not right that we should be getting to the point where MPs—on the other side of the House, I am afraid: every one of those requests has come from Conservative constituencies—are not prepared to listen to and support their constituents, who need such support to be built into the system.

People feel absolutely powerless. No wonder we have seen a huge rise in debt and mental health difficulties, especially among young people growing up in poverty and in families struggling against this system. Please let us change not just the amount of money that goes into the system, but the whole way in which people are treated. They must be supported and empowered to live fulfilling lives.

15:46

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be the last, I think, of the Back-Bench speakers today on the important issue of the spending of the Department for Work and Pensions and its estimates. That vital Department takes a quarter of the £800 billion-odd spent each year on public services. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on securing this excellent debate.

I spent a happy year sitting behind Ministers PPS-ing at the DWP. I was really passionate about working there, because it is a Department that can really make a difference; it has a huge spend and a vast range of levers to really help people and make a difference. Alternatively, if things go wrong, we see where people are hindered.

In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) referred to a number of Conservative Members elected in 2017 to seats that might previously have been described as the Labour heartlands. I want to add North East Derbyshire, a seat we won in 2017, to the list. I stood for that seat in 2010 against Natascha Engel—a former occupant of the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and an excellent MP. I spent two and a half years there. I remember how toxic the benefits culture there had become: an issue that set neighbour against neighbour.

People were concerned that they were working hard while they saw other people who they thought were not putting in the shifts. At times, that was unpleasant and unfair: it is very difficult to tell who is capable of work and who is not, and neighbours are not necessarily able to make the distinction. But I was troubled by the situation and by the statistics showing that, in 2010, 1.4 million people had been on long-term benefits for nine years and 2.6 million had been on them for five years. Clearly, that was a difficulty.

The big challenge for any Government elected in 2010, whether Labour or Conservative, was to work out how to get people capable of work off benefits and give them the tools, access and ability to step into work, thus reducing the benefits bill and focusing funds on those who really could not work. It was about helping and empowering those who could work to get into and rise up the jobs market.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar is right about electoral success. Fast forward to now, and we see that the approach has gone down incredibly well with voters—not only those who saw people on benefits who perhaps should not have been, but those people themselves, who wanted the help and were given the encouragement.

[Debbie Abrahams]

rose—

[Huw Merriman]

I will give way only once, as we are short of time.

[Debbie Abrahams]

The hon. Gentleman continues to make the assertion that welfare reforms have driven the increase in employment. There is no evidence to support that: the National Audit Office, for example, disputes it.

On the issue of working as the route out of poverty, I should say that, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, four out of five people in low-income work will still be in such work 10 years later. It is an absolute myth that work is a progression. That does not mean that we should not do stuff about that issue—of course we should.

[Huw Merriman]

Well, we can argue about statistics, but try this one. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady wants to throw one at me, but then will not let me respond with one, which I find slightly dictatorial. Some 2.2 million people were unemployed when we took office in 2010; that figure is now 1.4 million. I can give her the number of those who have clearly moved off unemployment benefit into work. We can argue about this all the way through—

[Alison McGovern]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Huw Merriman]

I am not going to take any more interventions because, to be fair, those making them have had a lot of time to speak, and I am not going to get much of a chance.

We have seen people moving into work, and that has been a huge success. From listening to Opposition Members, one would think that the benefits system was completely rosy. As I have said, not only were too many people on benefits—trapped on benefits—but if we look at the tax credits system and the attacks on universal credit, we can see that universal credit has been rolled out in a slow, progressive manner, and we have changed it as we have gone along, while tax credits, which were rolled out in one big bang, were overpaid by over £7 billion, and over £2 billion had to be clawed back from those who were actually the poorest. I do not want to take too many lectures on how to introduce a successful benefits system, because we have seen how things have failed before. What has most impressed me about the Department is that it has learned from the failings over the years and has tried to do things better.

I am absolutely passionate about universal credit, because I have spent time with my jobcentre and seen the enthusiasm that the work coaches have for it. When we go into a jobcentre now it is not like going into some cold, austere office where people are too scared to go in and get any help. It feels almost like a recruitment centre to help people. There are help points and people who are passionate about helping people into work.

I am really proud of this Government’s record. I believe that every Government should be judged on what they have done in helping people into work. As I have said before, on every occasion the Labour party has left office, it has done so with unemployment higher than when it entered, which has got to be considered a failure. The Conservative party has been able to secure 3.6 million extra jobs. We have also increased the living wage, taken people out of tax and incentivised them. We have tried to focus on people who need help the most. It is said that all these jobs are low-paid, but 70% of them are highly skilled. It is said that wages are not going up, but for the 15th month in succession wages are going up by more than inflation. The proportion of jobs that are low-paid stands at its lowest level for 20 years as a result of the national living wage. Yes, there is more to do, but let us not knock the record that we have delivered.

I am going to make one suggestion, and I am echoing a point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who talked about the Motor Neurone Disease Association. He and I played football against that organisation, and I found it the most extraordinary moment. It was incredibly touching to play alongside them, and I then met that team. The organisation makes the very good point, which is also made by the Marie Curie cancer organisation, that it cannot be right that we have to test those with terminal illnesses for their disability benefit. They are reliant on a doctor saying that they will die within six months, but GPs are not comfortable saying that. The challenge for us as a Government is really to listen, and to look at how much such a change would cost. We know those people are going to be able to claim benefits in the main, so it is only a delay while they have to wait. However, they do not have time to wait, and I would like our Government to look at that. It is not just about those in that period of six months, but also those who have managed to survive their terminal illness three years and then have to be retested.

While I am very proud of the Government for what they have done in putting people into work and in targeting support, with almost an extra 1 million disabled people in work as well—we have record levels—we still have individual policy areas that we need to fix and on which we should do better. We must never rest on our laurels.

15:49

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). May I again point him to the Scottish Social Security Agency and the way we in Scotland propose to treat people with a terminal illness? I think he will find that quite illuminating, and it has suggestions for this Government.

It is a pleasure to speak for the SNP in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on securing it. There have been a number of interesting speeches, not least that of the hon. Lady herself. She set out very well a strong defence of the welfare state. She rightly contrasted how pensioners, other than the WASPI women, have rightly been protected, while others have not. I will develop that point later in my speech. She also mentioned the fact that austerity is a choice, and she was right to draw attention to the 1.6 million food parcels handed out by the Trussell Trust as a stark reminder of the impoverishing failure of austerity. Best of all was her stout and clear argument that lack of income is the driving force behind poverty.

The hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) was right to welcome the Government’s cancelling the expansion of the two-child limit, but I question why she does not expect that policy to be scrapped.

I always enjoy listening to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) in these debates. She rightly asked why we do not hold the social security system in the UK in the same high esteem as the NHS. We should all ponder that, as should some in the fourth estate.

The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) made a thoughtful speech, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) made the best speech today. It was brilliant and rightly contradicted the Tory rhetoric on the two-child limit, highlighting last week’s report by the Child Poverty Action Group, the Church of England and others. I know it gives her no pleasure—it certainly gives me no pleasure—to say that the report proves that the warnings we gave at the time were correct. No mother—no parent—should have to choose between poverty and an abortion, but sadly that is the stark choice that faces some because of the two-child limit.

The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) is simply wrong about universal credit. The last Budget made up for just half the cuts that the 2015 Budget inflicted on universal credit.

The hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) was right to highlight the non-financial problems with universal credit and other benefits. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) was right to point to the DWP’s influence. Policy drives poverty—we should remember that.

Sadly, so much of the debate has been characterised by raking over decade-old ground rather than addressing the issues that we face today, and I wish that some Members had spent more of our time on the latter. The estimate for DWP spending is still driven by the policies of austerity that have ravaged the Department since 2010. The estimate may have risen by 3%, but, as the Library briefing makes clear, that is largely down to the Department’s accepting greater responsibility for spending that was previously made by other Departments—for example, taking tax credits from HMRC.

Most people who rely on social security do not see any rise in their weekly family budgets. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) made that point well when he said that 1.9 million people were worse off by £1,000 under universal credit according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Family incomes have been slashed, thanks to the austerity agenda that the Tory-Liberal coalition led and the Tories continued after 2015.

Even the modest rises in the state pension leave the UK state pension as one of the most miserly in the developed world. Thousands of people in Scotland and across the UK have been hit by the benefits freeze, the two-child cap, and cuts to disability benefit and universal credit, leading to a rise in food bank use and in-work poverty. That is why we want the UK Government to think again about their budget for the DWP. It is also why SNP Members will vote against the estimate. We do not do so to deny the funding to the Department; we are using the vote as the only blunt instrument we have to protest about the way in which the Department is funded and the way in which the estimates process is scrutinised. In Holyrood, Members can amend the Budget, but that is sadly not the case here.

The Budget allocation will not allow the Department to remove the two-child cap or the benefits freeze, to fix universal credit, or to mitigate the hardship suffered by women born in the 1950s because the state pension age increased without adequate notice or lead-in time.

What is the real world result of the Government’s spending cuts to the Department? It is increased poverty and food bank use. The Trussell Trust, the largest food bank network in the UK, has reported steep rises in demand for its services year on year. In this year’s report, it points to increased food bank use among working families. That should be a stark warning to us all.

The Secretary of State was the first in her role to acknowledge the long-stated link between social security cuts and increased food bank use, but the Government have done little to put the money where it is needed and stop the cuts that hurt the most, such as the benefits freeze and the two-child cap. The investment in universal credit at the last Budget did not even cover the cuts that were inflicted by the disgraceful 2015 Budget, which cut universal credit and other social security benefits to ribbons.

Everything in the estimate before us could be moot as we are going to have a new Prime Minister, a new Chancellor and probably a new Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions by the end of the month. My questions for the two remaining candidates for Prime Minister are these. What are their plans for social security? What are they going to do about child poverty? Are they going to follow the model set out last week by the Scottish Government, with the Scottish child payment? That measure alone, which will be delivered earlier than predicted to tackle the increase in child poverty perpetrated by the UK Government, is predicted to lift 30,000 children out of poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group described that as a game changer in the fight to tackle child poverty, which is quite the contrast from CPAG’s comments on the Tories’ two-child cap:

“You could not design a better policy to increase child poverty than this one”.

Whichever candidate wins, we want to know whether they will follow our example in putting money where it is needed, or whether will they continue with the pernicious cuts to social security we have seen them support since 2010.

It is unlikely that the frontrunner, the former Foreign Secretary, will have the ideological or economic space to address the problems with universal credit, as he will be spending Scottish taxpayers’ money on delivering a massive tax cut that the IFS has said would primarily benefit just the top 8% of earners. Quite how the 4.5 million UK children in poverty will benefit is anyone’s guess, but it is all a guessing game with this candidate. Indeed, yesterday I suggested it might be the Secretary of State’s final outing at DWP questions. Little did I know how prophetic that statement was. Today, we found out that the Foreign Secretary apparently wants to get rid of the DWP altogether. What an absolute farce!

I also raised yesterday the issue of child poverty. The Work and Pensions Secretary said that she saw work as the best route out of poverty. I agree, but it has to be properly paid work and the evidence shows that in-work poverty is rising. Incomes matter, which is why the new Scottish child payment is so important. So is addressing the chronic shortage of social and affordable housing, on which Scotland is leading the way. So is getting more employers to pay the real living wage, on which Scotland is leading the way. Those are just some of the reasons why Scotland has a lower child poverty figure than the rest of the UK.

Sadly, we have so much more to do. The UN special rapporteur on poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, recognised the work that is being done in Scotland to address poverty, but he also pointed to UK social security policies as driving poverty levels in Scotland. The Scottish Government, local authorities and third sector organisations are doing fantastic work to alleviate poverty, but we are pushing against the tide of UK cuts. The problems need to be fixed here.

One of the problems is the five-week wait that is built into universal credit. The waiting period is driving up indebtedness through rent arrears and commercial debt. One way of sorting it could be to use the assessment period for the advance payment of UC proper. If there is an acceptance that people need an advance at the start of universal credit, why say that that money has to be paid back? People cannot be expected to live off fresh air and they should not be expected to prolong indebtedness or financial hardship either. Advance the first payment of universal credit and stop the cycle of hardship. I have already mentioned the two-child cap and the benefit freeze, which, I think we are starting to realise, needs to get sorted. Taken with the five-week wait, fixing them would go a long way to stop the projected rise in poverty.

In terms of treating people with dignity and respect, there is an urgent need to sort out the disability assessment and to ensure there is a “do no harm” approach. Ministers will be aware of the work being done in Scotland to set up the new Scottish social security agency, which is soon to take responsibility for personal independence payments. One of the things we have confirmed we will do is to ensure all medical information about the applicant is available at the application stage, so as to avoid the need for the face-to-face assessments that so many disabled people find demeaning and irrelevant. It is hoped that by doing so we will cut the staggering appeal rights currently seen in the UK system, as we will get the decision right first time. The current Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), once said from the Back Benches that he was sympathetic to that idea. I hope he might be influential in the Department now in looking to follow Scotland’s lead in this area.

The pensions landscape still needs to be properly mapped out. I have repeatedly raised the issues faced by the 1950s-born women. I still believe that UK Ministers have an obligation to act, but we continue to be stonewalled. One issue picked up this morning, in a roundtable that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) and I had with pension stakeholders, was lost pension assets. The Association of British Insurers and the Pensions Policy Institute analysed that relatively recently and found that there are 1.6 million lost pension pots, averaging £13,000 each. In total, about £20 billion is unclaimed. Astonishingly, those figures are for defined-contribution schemes alone. Obviously, defined-benefit schemes are harder to analyse, but the total is expected to be far in excess of the £20 billion unclaimed from DC schemes.

What I find most frustrating is that, although the industry has been trying hard to return those assets to their owners, the UK Government have not been terribly helpful in providing the necessary information to allow it to do so. I hope that changes. Phoenix, one of the contributors to our meeting this morning, spent two years researching lost pension pots and managed to reunite people with £13 million from more than 2,300 pots. Clearly, the UK Government need to look at what they can do to help the industry, as we are talking about substantial amounts of money.

We await publication of the pensions Bill. I hope there is serious cross-party work to advance key issues such as the pensions dashboard and our idea for an independent pensions commission.

Sadly, this debate has shown that although there is general consensus on the pensions scene, there is very little in other areas of social security—there are some exceptions—that we agree on across the House. However, the facts speak for themselves. When we invest in families and ensure they receive proper support, poverty drops. Poverty is policy driven, and right now UK policy is impoverishing. That is why we cannot support these estimates this evening.

16:06

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on opening this vital debate and thank the many Members who have contributed.

Sadly, there are far too many things that Members could have chosen to focus on when considering the spending approach of the Department for Work and Pensions. Certainly, there is no shortage of examples of delivery failure, catastrophic underfunding and policy approaches that hit the most vulnerable the hardest, including 1950s-born women and citizens who are terminally ill. However, as Members highlighted, there is one area in which many of the Department’s failures come together and one group who all too often suffer the consequences of multiple cuts and changes in policy: children.

It shames us as a society that the Government have allowed children to bear the brunt in such a shocking manner. We therefore welcome this opportunity to scrutinise Department for Work and Pensions spending, and we welcome my hon. Friend’s choice of subject. When the future of some of our most vulnerable children is at stake, it is absolutely right that we should hold the Government to account for their poor decisions.

Shockingly, by 2022, the Department’s spending on social security will be £36 billion less per year than it was in 2010. Social security has become a vehicle for cuts—a political choice that saw 1.6 million emergency food parcels given out last year alone, 577,000 of them to children, and that has seen this Government dragged through the courts on several occasions. For example, 210,000 people who were underpaid employment and support allowance will now rightly receive the £920 million they are owed.

Consequently, as we have heard, the number of children living in poverty has increased by half a million to 4.1 million. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South said, that figure is likely to rise to more than 5 million. In-work poverty is rising faster than employment. Absolute child poverty has also increased over the past year, showing the negative impact of low pay, universal credit, the five-week wait, the four-year freeze and the two-child limit on family income. When poverty and food bank use are rapidly growing industries, tackling and preventing child poverty is clearly not a priority for this Government. When tools that should be used to support people, such as the flexible support fund, are regularly underspent, it prompts a question about whether the Government are even trying to support those most in need through the tools at their disposal.

Even if we were to ignore all the evidence and be generous to Ministers when they say that tackling poverty is a priority, it is clear that they are not doing so with the necessary vigour, success or compassion. When they have applied new policies, they have failed. There have been persistent problems with the personal independence payment, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), with more than 70% of appeals against decisions to remove PIP being successful, at considerable cost to the public purse and, more importantly, with detriment to the life chances and wellbeing of people. The many thousands of families who budget down to the nearest £1 every week to make sure that they can feed and clothe their children and provide a roof over their heads could certainly teach the two candidates rutting to be the next Prime Minister a thing or two about how to prioritise and manage budgets effectively.

Of course, there are many families for whom all the budgeting and prioritising in the world is still not enough to cover the costs of the Government’s draconian cuts to social security. They are victims of the Government’s insistence on continuing to plough on with universal credit and the freeze on working-age benefits, when all the evidence shows that those cuts are causing severe hardship and poverty.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South has highlighted, poverty is poverty, and food poverty is not separate from it, but a symptom of it—a symptom of low income. It cannot be divorced from the overall effect of Government policy, or wished away by Government-supporting MPs, who think a selfie at a food bank will solve the problems or absolve the Government of their responsibility as the architects of austerity Britain.

We have heard much of the evidence today. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) mentioned a case in which a pregnant woman had universal credit denied to her—I think the phrase my hon. Friend used was “ripped away”—in her time of need. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said that social security should be a safety net, but it is a net that is full of holes. She highlighted the immorality of the two-child limit. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) spoke about the insensitive assessments applied to the most vulnerable in our society.

Such stories are the real indicator of how we should view the Department and the Government’s record on poverty and their approach to social security. They are committed to the continuation of failing policies, and they would rather trumpet a jobs miracle that in reality, for many people in real communities, is nothing but a mirage; the reality is that most children in poverty live in working households. The Government’s approach has ensured that, for thousands of people, work is not a route out of poverty, given poverty wages and insecure work. That is a damning indictment of their record and of our current economic system. It needs to change.

In just three weeks’ time, we are likely to have one change at least. The leader of the Conservatives, and therefore the Prime Minister, will be someone different. Perhaps the Cabinet Minister responsible for the Department we are scrutinising today will be different too. However, given we have already had six of them in the past three years, that would be less remarkable. If the Government had shown the same willingness to change direction as they have shown to change Ministers, we might be in a different place. But it is not the changing of names around the Cabinet table that will make a difference, or even as some in the media reported yesterday, the scrapping of the Department. It is the changing of policy, the changing of attitude, and the changing of approach that will make a difference.

I ask the Minister to leave a legacy, and heed the clarion call from organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group and the many voices in the Chamber today. Will the Minister commit himself to ending the five-week wait for universal credit, removing the two-child limit and the benefit cap, scrapping the benefit freeze, paying up-front childcare costs, and putting a stop to punitive sanctions and work capability assessments? Or, better still, let us have a general election and let the people decide.

16:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)]

It is a pleasure to respond to a vital discussion of how the Department for Work and Pensions supports the 22 million people who rely on our services.

We have heard a huge number of valuable contributions, including those of the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern)—whom I congratulate on opening the debate—and my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George), and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). Later in my speech, I will respond to some of the key points that have been raised.

I have been in my post for three months, and over that time my key focus has been on supporting the most vulnerable in our society. No one in the Government wants to see poverty rising, and, while the latest “Households below average income” statistics, from 2017-18, do not reflect the £1.7 billion-a-year cash boost for our welfare system that was announced in the Budget, the Secretary of State and I recognise that there is more to do.

We know that children in households in which no one works are about five times more likely to be in poverty than those in households in which all adults work. We are committed to helping lone parents into jobs that are flexible in relation to their caring responsibilities, and more than 1.2 million are now in work. To help parents into work, the Government spend £6 billion on childcare each year. We are able to do that because we have doubled the number of free childcare hours to 30 a week for nearly 400,000 working parents of three and four-year-olds; introduced tax-free childcare which is worth up to £2,000 per child per year; and made changes in the flexible support fund to help people to pay up-front childcare costs. However, we recognise that we need to continue our work in this area. That is why the Secretary of State and I have publicly committed ourselves to tackling poverty, and child poverty in particular.

As we get closer to the spending review discussions, my ministerial colleagues and I are reviewing our bids, in collaboration with other Departments, to ensure that those who can work do work, and that those who cannot are supported. I can confirm that there are no plans to extend, or maintain, the benefit freeze after March 2020.

[Alex Burghart]

I thank the Minister for the commitments that he has just made. Will he also tell us what more the Government can do to ensure that vulnerable claimants can have access to universal credit?

[Will Quince]

My hon. Friend has made a very good point. We know that about 20% of people seek help when claiming universal credit. That is why we introduced the Help to Claim service, working with Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland. However, I am acutely aware that a number of vulnerable groups in my portfolio—care leavers, prison leavers, survivors of domestic abuse, and those who are homeless or sleeping rough—need extra support, and the Secretary of State and I are carefully considering a number of further options ahead of potential spending review bids.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Minister also confirm that it is now always worthwhile to go to work and that people are better off in work, contrary to what we have just heard?

[Will Quince]

My right hon. Friend is right. By removing the cliff edges, universal credit ensures that work always pays. That was not the case under the previous legacy system.

DWP Ministers always listen and act on feedback. That is why we recently announced that we will end three-year sanctions, initiate programmes to investigate how we can help those in work to progress, work with the Social Metrics Commission on a measurement of poverty, and no longer regularly review those on PIP who have reached state pension age. In addition, I continue to work closely with charities, stakeholders and Members on both sides of the House, using real-life experiences to shape improvements in the Department’s work.

We have worked with the real experts, the stakeholders, including Refuge and Women’s Aid, which have backed training for our work coaches to help victims of domestic abuse so they can better identify, refer and support those in need.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Will Quince]

With respect, I will not give way to Members who have not been present for any of the contributions to the debate.

In terms of supporting victims of domestic abuse, we want staff to be able to better identify, refer and support those in need.

We worked with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on the commitment to end rough sleeping through the homelessness and rough sleeping strategy and the Ministry of Justice to ensure prison leavers have access to welfare support from day one. Only last week the Secretary of State announced an extension to the UC pilot in HMP Perth and HMP Cornton Vale.

[Neil Gray]

I thank the Minister for giving way and will pass on the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). Will he give separate payments to women who have suffered domestic violence?

[Will Quince]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, split payments are available. I know the Scottish Government are looking at split payments by default, and that is an area I am looking at very closely indeed. It comes with huge complexities, as indeed the Scottish Government recognise, and we are working very closely with them. The Secretary of State has done a huge amount of work in this area—we would expect nothing less from a former Home Secretary who has done an awful lot of work around domestic abuse. So this is an area that I am looking at very carefully; I am conscious of it and am very happy to commit to continue to work with the Scottish Government to try to find a solution to what is a very complex issue.

Supporting the most vulnerable in society is at the very heart of our compassionate Conservative Government and my Department does exactly that.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister give way?

[Will Quince]

Last year we paid 20 million citizens—more than half of all adults in this country—a huge range of social security entitlements and benefits, from state pension and cold weather payments to universal credit and disability benefits. In total the Department spends £190 billion a year—spending that is equivalent to the GDP of Portugal.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister give way?

[Will Quince]

Through our welfare reforms and our reforms to make work pay we have got spending under control while ensuring that we do not trap people on welfare. [Interruption.] Under Labour, 1.4 million people spent most of the last decade trapped on out-of-work benefits, with some receiving more than the average wage. Some 50,000 households were allowed to claim benefits worth over £500 a week or more than £26,000 a year, higher than the average wage at the time. [Interruption.] We are creating a welfare system in which it pays to work, with universal credit simplifying the complex legacy benefits—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way.

[Will Quince]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth has already had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. She has intervened numerous times and, as I said at the beginning of my speech, far from being frit I will address a number of the key points raised during this debate.

We are creating a welfare system in which it pays to work, with universal credit simplifying the complex legacy benefit system that thwarted opportunities to work through punitive tax rates and a cliff edge for those wanting to do more work and that mired people in debt. We are establishing jobcentres that help people into work, not just to sign on—jobcentres where one-to-one personalised support is provided to a claimant from their work coach, offering advice and access to services to help the vulnerable, and where staff create links with businesses to make it their personal mission to help people not into just a job, but into the right job.

This is not to speak of the huge wider support that this Government offer. Our welfare reforms are assisting the incredible employment statistics we see month on month. The recent labour market figures show the importance of helping people into work, and this Government have created more than 3.6 million more jobs since 2010, helping people out of poverty and creating aspiration and a huge sense of purpose for millions. The employment rate is at a record high, while the unemployment rate has halved since 2010 and has not been lower since the 1970s. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle rightly said, no Labour Government have ever left office with unemployment lower than when they started, meaning that more people were denied the security of a regular wage. From May to July 1997 to March to May 2010, the unemployment level increased from 2.1 million to 2.5 million. There are now almost 1 million fewer workless households, giving more than 600,000 more children a role model in their home who is in work. The number of children living in workless households increased under Labour, meaning that fewer children were living in a financially stable household with a working role model.

[Alison McGovern]

rose—

[Will Quince]

Labour failed to help people into work so that they could provide for their families, with workless households increasing between 1997 and 2010.

[Ruth George]

rose—

[Will Quince]

The number of young people who are unemployed has almost halved since 2010. Female unemployment is at a record high, and wages are growing at their joint fastest rate in a decade. These are the reasons why our labour market is outperforming many—

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Call me old fashioned, but I thought the purpose of the Minister coming to the Dispatch Box was to reply to the debate. He has now been on his feet for 10 minutes, and all he is doing is reading out his civil service brief. This is becoming a habit among Ministers. He said that he was going to refer to Members in the debate, and I think he should start to do that—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I would have stopped the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) a few seconds earlier, but the House must forgive me for being unable to speak volubly today. He knows that this is not a point of order, and that it is up to the Minister to answer the debate however he wishes to do so. The Minister is perfectly in order.

[Will Quince]

I have taken numerous interventions already, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I stress that the point of a debate is actually being here to take part in it.

These are the reasons that our labour market is outperforming those of many other developed countries. More people have moved into work in the UK since 2010 than in France, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria and Norway combined.

[Neil Gray]

rose—

[Will Quince]

We are at record levels of employment and, once fully rolled out, universal credit will support another 200,000 people into work and help those already in work to increase hours. But we do not want people to have just any job; we want them to have good jobs where they are able to progress, and universal credit will enable this while providing an economic benefit of £8 billion a year to our economy and saving the Exchequer more than £3 billion annually.

But this is not “job done”. I know as well as anyone the importance of supporting people into work, particularly among vulnerable groups. That is why we have worked hard to create a safety net that not only supports people when they fall on hard times but gives them a hand up. That is vital. We are spending more than £55 billion this year to support disabled people and those with health conditions. That is more than any Labour Government did. Disability benefit spending will be higher in every year to 2023 than it was in 2010. Under universal credit, disabled claimants who cannot work will receive an average of £100 more each month than under the legacy system. So we are supporting those who have worked their whole lives and paid into our social security, and who now deserve to enjoy their retirement. We created the triple lock on state pensions, which has increased the amount of the basic state pension to almost £1,600 more than it was in 2010. We are further protecting the poorest pensioners through pension credit. This means that in total we spend more than £120 billion on benefits for pensioners in this country. As a result, pensioner poverty is now close to historic lows, which is where we want to keep it.

[Debbie Abrahams]

rose—

[Will Quince]

I will turn now to some of the points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Wirral South talked about the WASPI women. This Government have introduced transitional arrangements costing £1.1 billion. This concession reduced the proposed increase in the state pension age for more than 450,000 men and women, and it means that no woman will see her pension age change by more than 18 months relative to the 1995 Pensions Act timetable. As numerous hon. Members have pointed out, if we were to reverse the state pension changes made under the previous Pensions Act, it would cost more than £200 billion up to 2025-26.

Moving on, the two-child policy ensures that parents in receipt of benefits face the same financial choices when deciding to grow their families. As announced in January, we will no longer be extending the policy for new claims for children born before April 2017. Turning to the benefit freeze, I have already made it clear that we will end the freeze in 2020. As for universal credit, the principle is to have a simpler system, with six benefits rolled into one. When it comes to supporting children, I play a role in the early years ministerial group, which was chaired by the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). That group is looking at numerous options around cross-departmental work on supporting children.

[Alison Thewliss]

Will the Minister give way?

[Will Quince]

I will come to the points made by the hon. Lady.

The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth raised several points. The Government are spending £55 billion a year on benefits to support sick and disabled people. In 2019-20, our spending on main disability benefits is £9 billion higher than in 2010, and main disability benefits are exempt from the benefits freeze. On universal credit, as I have pointed out already, around 1 million disabled households will receive an average of around £100 more a month.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, who is no longer in her place, and she will know that we are working with employers through our Disability Confident scheme, giving them the tools and advice to support staff with a disability or long-term health condition. Over 12,000 employers have now signed up. The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), will pick up her suggestions. I thank her for the work she did when she was in the Department.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) made an intervention in relation to the Scottish child payment. I understand that the Scottish Government have laid out their plans to introduce an additional £10 a week for eligible children in Scotland, and I should say that we welcome the overall commitment to tackle poverty, but we note the challenge and look forward to understanding the impact of the payment in detail. We will continue to work with the Scottish Government on the impact and introduction of that payment.

Turning to the remarks from the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), the pensions dashboard is a digital interface that will allow individuals to see their pension savings online in one place to assist with their retirement planning, and I welcome the cross-party collaboration on that. On the pensions Bill, we intend to bring forward legislation when parliamentary time allows.

We are a Government determined to help the most vulnerable, to support them into work, to support them to stay in work, and to support them when they cannot work. We will continue to do that through all the support that the Department offers, and we will continue to assess and adjust that support by listening, learning and improving. I have met and visited several stakeholders, valuing and taking on their expert views, so we are always listening to colleagues, stakeholders and, most importantly, our constituents, whom we are here to serve and support.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That for the year ending with 31 March 2020, for expenditure by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—

(1) further resources, not exceeding £13,222,573,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 2154 of Session 2017–19,

(2) further resources, not exceeding £5,087,100,000 be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £9,295,168,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Wendy Morton.)

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected either of the amendments.

16:33

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate on this incredibly important matter. I thank the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) for supporting the application, along with all the members of the Public Accounts Committee. I also thank the hon. Members for Redcar (Anna Turley) and for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), who submitted similar applications that have been lumped in with this debate. I also give my thanks in advance to everyone who wants to speak today; I will be as quick as I possibly can.

Local government spending is a story of unsustainability and inequality. According to the Local Government Association, which is holding its conference as we speak, funding to local government and business rates have fallen by £4.1 billion since 2015. Councils have far less spending power, but here is the rub: our local councils are having to deal with a big growth in demand for key services. Taking into account the decrease in Government grants, subsidised a bit by the increase in council tax, our councils have lost nearly a third of their spending power over the last nine years, and key services are suffering.

We all know what that means, at its heart, for the most vulnerable in our communities. Since 2010 the number of homeless households has risen by 33%, the number of looked-after children is up by nearly 11% and the number of people aged 65 and over in need of care has increased by 14%. It is great that we are living longer, but central Government have not grasped the nettle.

The combination of with higher national insurance contributions, the apprenticeship levy and the national living wage means that councils are at breaking point. Given the major stresses on children’s services and adult social care, I will focus on those today, but there are many others, and I look forward to other Members making contributions about their local area.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

For childcare and other local authority services, central Government have shifted funding away from a grant system and on to business rates. Shopkeepers, in particular, are now finding it difficult to carry on their business. Central Government have also failed to deliver on social council housing, which is an indictment.

[Layla Moran]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. In fact, spending on services has decreased by 19.2% in real terms, which is not sustainable.

In my local area, Vale of White Horse District Council is a good example. We won the council from the Conservatives in the last round of local elections, and now we have sight of the finances. I am sure this is not unique in the country, but there is not enough money to fund the basic statutory services that the council is expected to deliver. The council is therefore eating into its reserves at an alarming rate. Coupled with that, an outsourcing agreement that was meant to save the council £50 million, and in fact has saved nothing, is projected to cost the taxpayer money. We are in a dire situation in the Vale.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The situation in the hon. Lady’s area is mirrored in Harrow, where the council has lost over 97% of its revenue support grant since 2010 and is really struggling. Is it not therefore particularly sad that neither of the two Conservative candidates for the premiership are talking about these issues at their hustings?

[Layla Moran]

I hope today’s debate will be a clarion call to them and others about the importance of local government in delivering key services.

The resilience of local councils across the country is a focus of the National Audit Office’s work, and it has real cause for concern. The message I have received from my friends at today’s LGA conference is twofold. First, we must remember that councils are multi-million pound companies, yet they do not know where their funding is coming from past next year. How on earth are they expected to plan without any sense of the medium term, let alone the long term?

Secondly, if we are to shift the burden from central Government to local government, income generation needs to be made easier. Across the country, I am not aware of a single council that has successfully used the referendum mechanism to raise council tax. This is not working. We need another way to make sure councils are properly funded.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Between 2011 and 2015, according to the NAO, 25% of the central Government grant to councils was cut. Does the hon. Lady regret the role of the Liberal Democrat coalition Government in such a heavy level of cuts?

[Layla Moran]

When I was a candidate, I, too, fought against these cuts, particularly those to children’s services. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a teacher, and I was seeing the effect the cuts would have. Interestingly, the data show that some of that was fat that could be trimmed off. [Interruption.] Let me finish. [Interruption.] Just look at the transcripts from the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government. In 2012-13, there was an increase in efficiency, but I will concede that after that point the cuts should have stopped. The point of today’s debate is to move forwards. Having been elected in 2017, I hope the hon. Gentleman will join me in looking forwards and not backwards.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Layla Moran]

I am moving on. I am not going to give way.

[Mr Betts]

The hon. Lady just referred to the Select Committee.

[Layla Moran]

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in just a second.

Let me move on to adult social care, because it is really important. The Chancellor’s extra £750 million for social care in 2019-20 falls drastically short, given that the funding gap for adult social care is expected to reach £3.6 billion by 2025, according to the Local Government Association. This is a vital government service and central Government responsibility is shared between two Departments. I have many questions for the Minister, but one is: where on earth is the adult social care Green Paper? The situation is no longer sustainable. The adult social care sector in England accounted for 1.34 million jobs in 2016-17, yet, according to the National Audit Office, it has been 10 years since a national workforce strategy has been published. Furthermore, 43% of those aged 80 or over in England in 2016 needed help with activities for daily living, yet only 20% actually received the help they need. Demand is increasing and less is being provided—and to fewer people.

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Layla Moran]

And of course I happily give way to the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Mr Betts]

I am not sure the hon. Lady will be quite so happy when she hears what I have to say about the matter. Again, this is typical of the Lib Dems, is it not? We see collective memory loss about what happened between 2010 and 2015, and them now washing their hands. Does she accept that the biggest cuts in real terms per year in adult social care happened between 2010 and 2015, and she and her colleagues in the Lib Dems bear equal responsibility for that?

[Layla Moran]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. As I say, I am looking forwards.

On adult social care, the Liberal Democrats are proposing—I would be curious to know whether Labour is planning the same—a penny in the pound on income tax to add to the social care budget, in order to sort out the short-term funding issues. That has to be just a short-term solution. The longer-term solution is not this tit-for-tat political to-ing and fro-ing; it has to be a cross-party effort to find a long-term settlement that will last for decades, not years.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady on this. The Select Committees on Health and Social Care and on Housing, Communities and Local Government issued a joint report on the future funding of social care. One of its recommendations was a social care premium—an insurance based model like the German model. Would her party engage with that, on a cross-party basis, involving Conservative Members and Members on those Benches?

[Layla Moran]

I absolutely agree with that. Those calls were led by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who has been working on this issue on a cross-party basis. We have to do this together or we are not going to do it at all.

I now come to children’s services, an issue that, as a former teacher, is very close to my heart. Councils are overspending on these services, too—they did so by £872 million in 2017-18. The Public Accounts Committee has reported that 91% of authorities overspent. We are talking about young vulnerable children here. Something odd is happening, because although the number of children in the population has gone up, increasing by 7% since 2010, the number of child protection assessments has increased by 77%, on average, across the country. Worryingly, however, the figures are really different depending on the area of the country, suggesting that best practice is not being spread. For example, Camden Council has decreased the number of children that it has in looked-after care but other parts of the country have increased this by more than 90%. What are the Government doing to ensure that what some councils are clearly doing right is being spread? Meanwhile 42% of all local councils are rated as good or outstanding by Ofsted—but that means 58% are not. That is atrocious. We need to make sure that councils are held to account. My understanding is that Ofsted is so overstretched that it has for the moment suspended the rating of local councils. Will the Minister clarify whether that is true?

The final thing I wish to talk about is prevention. I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, and my colleagues and I are interested in value for money for the taxpayer. I am deeply concerned that the changes to children’s centres and youth services are not delivering value for money. In fact, worse than that, they are failing the young people of our country. The decrease in the number of Sure Start centres in Oxfordshire has meant that we cannot reach the same number of families as we did previously.

Meanwhile, the head of Ofsted said in her annual report:

“The evidence suggests that these cuts to youth and other services are a false economy, simply leading to greater pressures elsewhere.”

The Minister will know that in 2015 the Government axed the Audit Commission. Who is looking after the money? When something is cut in one Department, what effect is it going to have elsewhere? I am told that the responsibility is now in the purview of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but it is not transparent. In the reports that the Public Accounts Committee has seen, it was not obvious that everyone knows what is going on. That is a key ask of the Minister: who is looking after the money? From what we have seen, not enough people are.

The lack of someone looking after the money has an effect on things such as the schools system. Schools have now become a repository for every other issue that has happened in local government, and we see the same with our police. I am sure many Members know of similar issues to those that I see in respect of special educational needs and disability funding: there just is not enough money adequately to support the children who need education, health and care plans. Why, when schools are already under funding pressure, are they being asked to provide the first £6,000 towards any plan? Surely it would make more sense that if a child has a need, that need is fulfilled.

Similarly, when are we going to see the Government address inequalities in the system, such as those relating to young carers? They are required in statutory legislation to undergo an assessment of what they need, but there is no legislation that follows through on that and says that they have to be provided with the things they have been assessed as needing. Who is dealing with those kinds of inequalities?

[Gareth Thomas]

One pressure that the hon. Lady has not mentioned is homelessness. Although we on the Opposition Benches will not be surprised by the Government’s lack of additional revenue to tackle homelessness, does she not think it particularly odd that the Conservative party, which claims to be the party of the armed forces, is doing nothing about the scale of rough sleeping among veterans?

[Layla Moran]

As I said at the beginning of the debate, we have seen a rise in homelessness. It has been a particular focus of mine on the Public Accounts Committee, and the hon. Gentleman might be aware of my campaign to scrap the Vagrancy Act 1824. We need to make sure that the fact that we are a compassionate nation is reflected in all parts of policy. I could not agree with his point more. As he rightly pointed out, there are many things that I have not touched on, but I am sure other Members will. This has just been a quick canter around the finances in the estimates.

I hope that the Public Accounts Committee’s reports on local government spending and sustainability are bedside reading for all Ministers, because they make recommendations that I sincerely hope Ministers will take seriously. When the Minister responds to the debate, please can we have answers on the following? First, where is the spending review? How on earth can we expect councils to plan for the medium and long term when they do not even know where next year’s money is going to come from? Secondly, where is the fairer funding review? The Government have moved the burden of taxation from central Government to local government, but the underlying inequity in the system still exists. Thirdly, linked to that, where is the business rates review? As was alluded to earlier, local economies are suffering because of a lack of joined-up thinking. Finally, a refrain that I hope and am sure others will continue: where is the social care Green Paper?

We need all four together before we can achieve genuine value for money in what local councils deliver. Anything else is a false economy. All of us see the knock-on effects of these Whitehall spending decisions in our postbags. We also see the desperation of people who come to us because they feel that their local councils have failed them. However, half the time, it is not local councils that have failed them; it is central Government. Local government is vital. It is the coalface—it is where real policy meets real people. I hope that today’s debate will be a clarion call. Local government may not always be sexy, but it is certainly significant. I thank all colleagues for being here and the Backbench Business Committee for enabling us to have today’s debate.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. There is quite a lot of time for the debate this afternoon, but, as the House can see, a great many people wish to speak. I hope that we can manage without a formal time limit, because the debate flows better without one. We can do so if hon. Members are courteous enough to speak for around eight minutes. If Members do that, everyone will have a fair and equal chance to contribute. If not, we will have a time limit.

16:51

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to catch your eye in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who is a highly valued member of the Public Accounts Committee, of which I have the honour to be deputy Chair. It is clear from her speech that she is extremely knowledgeable about this area, particularly about education, on which she is the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

I also pay tribute to other Members who have helped to secure this really important debate. The reason it is so important is that local authorities are by far the largest devolved form of government in England. They deliver a range of vital services, such as education, planning and social services. The money devoted to local government, and therefore to the effectiveness of these services, is vital to the people of this country, which is why, for the first time in 27 years in this place, I wanted to speak in an estimates debate, but particularly in this one on the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

It is a disaster for the people covered by a local authority area when it runs out of money and centrally appointed commissioners are brought in to oversee the finances, as we have seen in Northamptonshire County Council. We need to look very carefully at the role of section 15 officers, who have issued more than 114 notices of loss of financial control since 2010-11. We particularly need to encourage the Government to be intrusive in their inspection of local audits, because it is possible to spot when a local authority is beginning to get into trouble far sooner than was the case with Northamptonshire, thereby possibly avoiding bringing in the local commissioners.

As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon said, the finances of local government are fairly parlous at the moment—resources fell by 34% in real terms between 2010-11 and 2017-18. Paragraph 12 on page 9 of the National Audit Office report states tellingly that overspending and the use of resources were not fully financially sustainable over the medium term. I encourage my colleagues on the Front Bench to look very carefully at this whole matter.

Local government is now facing a funding gap of £3.1 billion by 2019-20, which is estimated to rise to a staggering £8 billion by 2024-25, according to the NAO. Local government spending is being stretched significantly as we face the demand for services way outstretching available funding. This year, for example, Gloucestershire County Council has had to raise its council tax in every district to make £21 million of savings to deal with the financial pressure. To simply keep up with the county’s demand for services, council tax payers now need to provide nearly £295 million.

Children’s social services are a particular worry in the county and across many education authorities. It is the No. 1 financial pressure on Gloucestershire’s 2019-20 budget, as the authority will spend an additional £16.3 million on the most vulnerable children and young people in the county. Ofsted made a monitoring visit to Gloucestershire’s children’s social services in April—its sixth monitoring visit since our local authority was judged to be inadequate in March 2017. It is promising to see that progress has been made. However, that progress was deemed to be slow, and we cannot continue to fail to provide good enough social services for our most vulnerable children and young people.

Throughout the country, 42% of children’s social services are rated good and we spend some £8.8 billion on them, but 91% of local authorities have overspent in this area and we need to understand why. We had the education debate yesterday, and although there is a record amount of money in education overall—rising from £41 billion in 2017-18 to £43.5 billion in 2019-2020—the problem is with distribution. That is the case for my local authority, and I suspect that some of my colleagues on both sides of the House who are in the f40 group would agree that the distribution of money is critical. For example, an authority such as Hackney is getting £6,500 per secondary place, yet some schools in Gloucestershire are below the fair funding amount of £4,800 per secondary place.

[Layla Moran]

I apologise for intervening, as I have already spoken for a long time. I am a vice-chair of the f40 group. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the current calls from the f40 are about not just distribution but quantum? The “Together for Education” event that took place across the way in Westminster on the weekend before last called for an extra £2.2 billion a year in the education budget, because the f40 group recognises that we can redistribute all we want but the quantum also needs to rise.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I accept what the hon. Lady says. The problem is that it is about not only the money that schools get, but the costs that central Government keep imposing on schools—pensions, the apprenticeship levy or other expenditures. The costs keep going up, so the amount that schools have to spend is squeezed every year.

The Government need to do two things. First, they need to consider the quantum, as the hon. Lady has said. Secondly, when they impose an additional tax or an additional cost on a school, they need to consider very carefully how that school’s budget is being squeezed. We want to give our children the fairest possible start in life, and allocating adequate resources to education is almost the most important thing a Government can do, which is why I feel so strongly about this issue.

I also feel strongly about children’s special needs. The amount that Gloucestershire is spending in this regard is going up and up. I am grateful to the Government for providing an additional £1.35 million this year and next to deal with the problem, but they need to understand the causes of the increased demand in special needs, and education, health and care plans. The Government probably need to ring-fence this budget so that we do not get into the situation that we did this year, whereby Gloucestershire County Council was going to top-slice its general schools budget by up to 0.5% to deal with the problem. It is currently entitled to do so, but that is not fair on schoolchildren in general, which is why the Government need to ring-fence this budget.

Local enterprise partnerships—where local authorities contribute a significant amount of money, certainly some of the expertise and some of the governance—are rather variable, as we discovered from the NAO report. Some work extremely well; some work far less well. Some are governed extremely well; some are governed less well. There is geographical overlap in some, but not in others. If the Government wish to deliver their industrial strategy to the best possible degree, they need to look at the whole matter of LEPs quite carefully.

The fire and rescue service in Gloucestershire is currently run by the county council, but there is considerable pressure from the Home Office to transfer it to the police and crime commissioner. We have already had one inquiry and the proposal was rejected, yet the police and crime commissioner still wishes to overturn the decision. I say to my colleagues on the Front Bench that a considerable amount of resource and effort is being wasted by continually bickering over this matter. The fire and rescue service, I say loud and clear, is well run in Gloucestershire. The county council supports it, as do, I think, most Conservative colleagues—certainly, I support it very strongly. It should remain where it is.

We need to get local government funding functioning properly. This is a really serious problem. The Government wish to move to a new form of funding—the core rate support grant—in local government in 2021. That means that there are vital decisions that they need to make quite quickly. The proposal is that councils should keep three quarters of the revenue, down from 90% originally, but fundamental decisions on how this will work are coming very late in the day. No council should be under financial pressure, because of the tier splits, to move to 75% retention. We need to decide what the distribution system should be. If Westminster Council, for example, keeps 75% of its rate support, it will be awash with money, whereas a council in the north that keeps 75% will be in severe shortage. The councils need to know. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon says, it is only fair that the funding system for councils both for next year and the year after are made very clear fairly soon.

The other side of the coin is that the Government have a target for building 300,000 more homes each year. Councils will be able to do that only if they are properly incentivised by the council tax system. They need to be able to work out what that system is going to be. As part of the local government finance reorganisation, what will the incentives be for councils that want to expand their council tax base, as with the incentives to expand their business rate base? Again, the Government need to make some decisions on this. They need to tell us whether the new homes bonus will remain, and in what form, to give councils that incentive.

This is a huge field. I think I have cantered over some of the main areas, and others will do the same.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I remind the House that I have been told that there is an informal eight-minute limit. If we can stick to that, we will help everybody.

17:02

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I thank the Library and the National Audit Office for the briefings we have had, as usual. Laraine Manley, the director of place at Sheffield City Council, has given me some information about housing as well.

The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has produced a number of reports over the years covering many of these areas. The whole remit of the Committee is unique in Government in that while the Ministry has limited budgets of its own to deal with certain specific issues, it has oversight of local government as a whole, including spending by other Government Departments. The Ministry is supposed to act as a glue that brings all that together. However, there are concerns, as highlighted by Amyas Morse when he commented that there are no evidence-based efforts in Government to reconcile the funding to local needs. That is really quite a dramatic statement to make. In other words, Government do not have a clue what local government should be spending. That is not a direct comment about the Minister on the Front Bench or his colleague; it is a comment about Governments over the years. There has not been oversight of local government or an assessment of what it needs. All we get is, every so often, a divvying up of the money that is available between different councils, or the new burdens rule where something new is added and a council will get a bit more to pay for it—a bit more out of the system.

The figures are there. We have seen a 50% cut in Government grant to local councils since 2010, the biggest local government cuts to any service—not denied, I think, by Ministers—and a 30% cut in spending power. The pressures on social care, both for adults and children, continue to rise. The Government’s response to our report on children’s services is out today, and I think they have accepted a lot of the problems that exist. There will be a lot more work to do on this. As care has taken a bigger slice of a smaller cake, all the other important services such as parks—which we have done a report on—highways and buses, libraries, environmental services and refuse collection are getting cut even more, by between 30% and 60%. I am really worried, as I have said before, that we are seeing a hollowing out of local democracy where, in the end, councils just become the messenger boys and girls doing what the Chancellor and the Secretary of State want on a very narrow range of statutory services. That is a real worry, and we should all take account of it.

In the end, councils can only do their best. They have done marvellously well with efficiency savings: we are now making real cuts to real services that are affecting real people. Yes, council tax has been put up in many cases, but that is a regressive tax. On business rates, in the end local authorities have virtually no discretion at all anyway.

There is massive uncertainty now. We may possibly have the four-year spending review—nobody is quite sure whether it will happen; I do not really think the Minister even is. The other day, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury seemed to indicate that it was not going to happen. As Gary Porter said the other day at the Local Government Association conference, local government is in a state of complete uncertainty—it has no idea at all what is going to happen from next year. Are we going to have a spending review for four years or for one year, because the four-year one will be postponed? If we have the one-year review, we cannot do the fair funding review because there will not be enough time for it to work through.

What is happening with the 75% business rate retention? Can that be done at the same time as all the other changes or will that be too much for local authorities to absorb? The Minister accepted at the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee evidence session the other day that the business rate retention scheme is probably the most complicated part of a very complicated system. Can this all be brought together and made sense of? I have not yet mentioned the shared prosperity fund, which is somewhere out there, to be considered at some point. All those things give massive uncertainty to councils and councillors providing important services to the people who matter at the end of the day. Councillors are uncertain and so are the communities out there about what they are going to get as a result of the changes.

As the LGA and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have said, what is really worrying is the prospect that 90 councils will simply run out of money during the next spending review unless more is provided. Council treasurers are saying that; that is the situation. Councils have done terribly well, but they cannot carry on using reserves as they are having to now.

I turn to the issue of housing, which represents the other part of the money spent directly by the Department. Everyone wants to see us meet the ambitious target of building 300,000 new homes in this country. My personal view is that that cannot be delivered unless about half are provided by the public sector—councils and housing associations; historically, the private sector has never consistently gone above 150,000. If we are going to do that, it is not enough to say that we have lifted the housing revenue account cap and councils can start to build. I hope that they can, but Laraine Manley, director of place at Sheffield City Council, has spelt out the situation there.

We have a really ambitious council in Sheffield, including Councillor Paul Wood, the new cabinet member, and Councillor Sophie Wilson, who is down today to celebrate 100 years of council housing. Both want to build council houses, but the issue is not just the borrowing but the revenue to support the borrowing. That also matters. The revenue comes from rents. One of the most damaging things the Government did was to restrict rent increases on local authority and housing association homes in the last spending review. Sheffield City Council estimates that that took a startling £800 million out of its long-term business plan—money that would have gone into supporting new house building and important maintenance of existing homes. That figure is staggering. Although the rent increase in the next round will be the consumer prices index plus 1%, that will not be sufficient to build back the loss that has already occurred. At some point, the Government will have to consider greater freedom for councils and housing associations to raise rents to fund new building in the future.

Apparently, about 70% of the costs for building new homes will come from existing rents in the housing stock; the rest will come either from grants from Homes England or from receipts, although apparently receipts and grants cannot be used for the same home. The Government may also want to have a look at that—and, again, address the issue of why more right-to-buy receipts cannot go to councils to support house building in future.

Those are big issues, and the Select Committee will shortly do an inquiry into social house building and how we can ensure that the homes needed are actually built. That will be interesting.

Finally, I will mention the other big issue that we have to mention today: cladding on not just high-rise buildings, but high-risk buildings. The Government have so far put aside £400 million to take ACM cladding off social housing and £200 million for doing so in the private sector. I have to say that the social housing figure is not likely to be enough, and the private sector figure certainly will not be enough. More money will have to be found to get that cladding off and make those homes safe. The Government are now doing a review of 1,600 more properties with non-ACM cladding that may be just as dangerous. If it is as dangerous, it is going to have to come off, as the Minister for Housing has already said. If it has to come off, the Government will have to find the same money as they are doing for ACM cladding. If we add the ACM cladding budget of up to £1 billion to another £1 billion for other types of cladding, we are at over £2 billion. That does not even deal with the issue of materials that are not in those categories but are not of limited combustibility.

Under the changes the Government have made, they are insisting that those materials will not go on new buildings, yet they are saying that materials not safe to go on new buildings can still be left on existing buildings and that they will not help to remove them. I think there is a very big additional bill coming down the road, and when we see the estimates for the Department in one or two years’ time, they may well be very different.

17:10

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), and it has been a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee under his guidance for the last four years. I agree with many of the points he made, particularly the last stuff on cladding. We know that is a much bigger issue than is currently accepted, and we need to deal with it. It is interesting that he talks about local authorities not having rents capped when it is Labour party policy to cap rents in the private sector. I am not sure that is a very balanced approach.

I agree with many of the points the hon. Gentleman made about the spending challenges for local authorities. Clearly, there are huge spending challenges for local authorities and also for the national Government. It is my belief that we will have to address this stuff in a very different way. This is not a party political point, but Governments of all persuasions have balanced the books in this country only seven times—they have done so in only seven years—over the past 53 years. We cannot simply keep spending more than we are getting in, otherwise we end up with the £2 trillion debt, which is where we are.

I regret some of the spending pledges in our leadership contest at the moment, because we have got to run this country much more prudently. We have to be able to balance the books on an ongoing basis, and certainly to do so within a cycle. We have some massive challenges ahead that we will all have to accept: the cost of healthcare that we are going to provide; the cost of pensions that we are going to have to provide; and the costs of social care. As things are at the moment, all this is going to land on the taxpayer. It does not seem feasible that that situation can continue, particularly in the area of social care. We know there is a funding gap for local authorities of about £3 billion, which will rise to about £8 billion within five years, according to the LGA.

The Minister is doing a brilliant job in trying to get extra funds, and also in making sure that the funds are spread fairly across the country. The current funding formula is certainly not fair. My local authority has about 50% less spending power compared with some London authorities, for example. We need a fair settlement—one that is fair to everybody—but this has to be a rising tide that lifts all boats. If we do not put extra money into the system, we cannot provide a fairer funding system, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said about school funding, and we cannot have some people losing out when everybody’s budgets are tight. We are going to have to find some more money for local authorities from somewhere if we are properly to address the fairer funding issue.

The biggest issues for my local authority, North Yorkshire County Council, are those involving children’s services and social care, which is what I primarily want to talk about. The difficulty with social care is that it has virtually zero correlation with the method of funding local authorities today or in the future. Moving to a system of business retention—the Minister knows I have reservations about such a system—means a finite amount of money for local authorities at a time when there is huge and rising demand for social care. There is no correlation between those two things. Local authority funding will be unsustainable. Either we find a new way of doing this, or local authorities will provide many fewer services in future.

The Select Committee considered social care twice. The first time, we went to Germany to look at the system there and then we conducted a joint inquiry with the Health and Social Care Committee. We settled on several recommendations, one of which constitutes the right solution, which is sustainable, scaleable and simple. It is the German system that was adopted in 1995. Before then, the German system was funded by local authorities. I am sure that they recognised that that was not sustainable, so they moved to a system of social insurance.

Everybody pays a small amount—just over 1% of people’s salaries, and the employer pays 1% of earnings—into a private insurance system. The insurance companies are not for profit—nobody makes any money out of the system. The levies are settled nationally, and the system also covers people with learning difficulties and disabilities. The system is simple and sustainable. Everybody pays a small amount so that nobody has to pay everything. That is the fairest part.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is talking about social insurance. I and many others have been arguing that the continental system of social insurance, particularly for funding health services, is probably the way forward. As our population ages, getting public support to pay for those services through general taxation becomes increasingly unsustainable. Personalising social insurance creates more support.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. However, I believe that healthcare is different. Social care should be funded differently because everybody has a personal responsibility to provide for themselves in the future. Of course, people do not put money aside for many reasons. The system must be mandatory—that is the key—so that everybody puts some money aside even when times are tough. There is a threshold for people on low incomes, but the system means that people properly prepare for the future.

One of the biggest benefits comes when people are assessed as needing care. They can take the services of a charitable provider or the local authority, or decide to take the money. People who decide to take the money on a monthly basis can pay it to a relative or loved one to look after them. Another big benefit is therefore social cohesion. The system is about family looking after family, just as we used to do. We do not do that as much now. The system is good for society and for community. We saw that huge benefit when we went to Germany.

We have cross-party support for the idea. Both Select Committees—20-odd of us—reached that conclusion. It was one of the recommendations of our report, so we should work cross-party on it. There have been commissions on social care in the past, but when they report, the question is whether the recommendations are possible politically. If we put together our own parliamentary commission and reach cross-party consensus, I believe that we could deliver the recommendation.

The system has to be mandatory because there will not be an insurance market for it otherwise. That was the problem with the Dilnot recommendation. The scheme was not mandatory and therefore no insurance market developed on the back of it, so there was nothing available for social insurance. It is a great opportunity, which will cut the link between a potential huge future cost for local authorities, and our ageing population and the increased number of people with learning disabilities. Obviously, local authorities will have a huge part to play in directing services, but they will also be able to provide the other services that are critical for local people.

I am keen to work cross-party on the matter. I know that the Local Government Minister has regarded the proposal positively in the past and I am keen for the Department to give it a positive recommendation in the forthcoming Green Paper.

17:19

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I would like to begin by addressing the remarks of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). I am sorry, but her party, the Liberal Democrats, were not innocent bystanders in austerity. They were active participants. She says she wants to look to the future—fine—but the effects of the decisions taken under the coalition Government are still biting today, not just in local government but across a whole host of Government policies. I am sorry, but people need to keep being reminded of that.

The National Audit Office and the Centre for Cities produced very robust reports on the effects of the cuts by the coalition Government and this Government to local government funding. Those cuts have been, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, most severe in their effect. They have also not been very fair. For example, the most deprived areas in the north have borne the biggest share of the cuts, while areas such as Surrey and Wokingham have had few cuts that have had very little effect.

Durham County Council has faced massive cuts. Since 2010-11, its budget has been cut by £242 million. It has also been put at a disadvantage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East alluded to earlier, the Government have been moving funding from central Government to locally raised taxation. That puts authorities such as Durham at a huge disadvantage, because we have a low council tax base and a low business tax rate base. Some 50% of properties in County Durham are in council tax band A, so its ability to raise local taxation, even if it wanted to, is limited compared to others that have a larger and more diverse council tax base. If that was not bad enough, in addition to what is coming down the road with the fairer funding formula, County Durham will have to find another £39 million of cuts over the next four years. Under that strangely named fairer funding formula, County Durham loses an additional £10 million. Even though it is a deprived area, since 2011 it has already faced a higher than average core spending cut. Yet if we look at the average across the country, Durham is below average, so I do not know how that can be fair.

There is an idea, not just in local government funding but in education funding and everything else, that somehow every single part of the country is the same. We heard it from the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who argued that the Cotswolds could somehow be compared to an inner-city borough such as Hackney. It is quite clear that deprived areas such as County Durham have a huge call on their resources from the two great drivers, adult social care and children’s care.

In 2018, there were 1,157 looked-after children in County Durham. Wokingham, which has not had the savage cuts that County Durham has had to face, looks after 141 children. We not comparing like with like. These are not services that councils can pick and choose from either; they fall under statutory provision. I have to say that Durham does them very well, but they create huge demands on the council budget that are not reflected in the support received from central Government. The cut in core spending has been dramatic in County Durham. Government figures show that the average core spending per dwelling is £1,908. In Durham, it is £1,727. In Surrey, which I would argue is a little bit more affluent than County Durham, it is £2,004. If we were brought up to even the England average, County Durham would get an additional £44 million.

This is about not only the savage effects of austerity on local government, but the pork barrel way in which the Government have distributed the money, clearly favouring areas that have supported the Conservative party and its coalition partners in the past, and punishing northern councils. In addition to the cuts that have taken place already, we have the public health funding formula, on which I led a Westminster Hall debate a few weeks ago. How can it be right that County Durham will lose £19 million a year—35% of its budget—while Surrey County Council increases its public health budget by £14 million a year?

Those funding decisions are clearly designed to support certain areas. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) chunters from a sedentary position, but the facts are there in black and white. It has been a deliberate policy of this Government since—[Interruption.] Oh, he has got tired and gone off for a sleep. Clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East said, we need not only to look at fairer funding for local government but to ask what we need it to do. Like him, I feel that we will end up in a situation where some councils go bankrupt—some already have—and others struggle on delivering services, while being blamed by the Government for not doing so, when they have limited ability even to raise council tax locally.

In the 1980s, when I was first elected to local government, the Conservative party was a proud party of local government. It actively supported local government, cared about it and, as my hon. Friend said, thought it was an important part of the glue of democracy and of how we provided for communities. Alas, that seems a distant past: as I said, local government clearly will not be a priority for whoever wins the Conservative party leadership contest. This cannot go on, or we will end up in a situation where the people we were elected to serve suffer and councils throughout the country become unsustainable.

17:27

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I normally agree with him on so many things, but since he touched on the Conservative party leadership contest, let me say that there is a hustings for Conservative councillors taking place at this very moment at the Local Government Association conference. Of course, they are at the forefront of public service and our local communities, and they are proud Conservatives in the role they play in local government. I had better declare an interest: I am married to a Conservative councillor, so I will double down and reiterate that point.

I think all Members would agree that local government stands at the forefront of the delivery of so many services across our country, and that so many of our constituents depend on those services. I think it is fair to say, on the basis of the comments we have heard, that we all know there are challenges with that across our constituencies. It is appropriate that we should debate local government and the MHCLG estimates on the day that the Local Government Association holds its conference in Bournemouth, because councils are responsible for the delivery of so many vital services in our communities. I want to touch on a number of them, including housing, adult social care and supporting children with special needs, with reference to the challenges of growing demand.

Much of this has been mentioned already, but I would like to give some examples from Essex, where we also have funding pressures. It is not a policy of discrimination, if I may say so in reply to the points made by the right hon. Member for North Durham. Despite facing a tight squeeze on the funds they receive from central Government—a squeeze that started before 2010—local authorities have worked hard, and we should pay tribute to all councils, whatever their composition, because they have all worked hard to balance their books.

We know that efficiencies have been made. We know that local authorities have been innovative: services have been shared, procurement strategies changed, and some services reduced or changed. But rising demand has put councils at a tipping point where they now need some increases in resource from central Government, certainty about medium-term settlements and more flexibility over the powers they have and the ways they can generate income.

In the amazing and incredible county of Essex, the county council has delivered £311 million of savings over the last four years, a significant sum, and it is working to make a further £176 million of savings by 2021-22. The reason for those savings is to ensure that resources are naturally focused on investing in adult social care and the council’s outstanding children’s services. It received an outstanding Ofsted score, and I am very proud of the council for its sheer determination and the work it has done to receive that score. But the savings target is a stretch, because there is little left to cut. There is little more that the council can slice off because demand on services is growing at a startling rate. For adult services, we see a growing number of service users who use services for longer and have more complex needs. Over the next decade, the number of residents in Essex aged over 80 will rise by 60% and the number of those aged over 90 will double. There are also growing numbers of adults with learning disabilities who we want to support as much as possible. That is the right and compassionate thing to do, and we want to provide fairness and opportunities in doing so.

We must see the Government do more to give councils such as Essex the resources to meet these needs. We also need to see the Government recognise that our councils need more resources to support children’s services and those with special needs and disabilities. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) also mentioned that in her opening remarks, and that touches on education, health and care plans too. While councils’ budgets have been squeezed, they have had to provide for more services and new responsibilities, and it is right that we all recognise that.

The introduction and roll-out of education, health and care plans has caused a 35% increase across the county in the number of pupils covered by EHCPs in the four years between 2013-14 and 2017-18. It is right that we recognise the impact that is having on budgets for supporting children with special educational needs, because it has not been met by the high needs funding block.

Councils now face the challenge of carrying deficits and they do not know what the Government will do to address that. In Essex, the deficit is now £15 million and it is set to double. Across the country, it could hit £1.6 billion by 2020-21. That challenge needs to be addressed. We have all heard about funding reforms and we have all participated in many debates and presented the issues to Ministers, stressing that those matters will have to be addressed through the comprehensive funding review and fair funding review, when they come. Those reviews must deliver genuine reform. We cannot tinker around the edges any more.

The process must include addressing the regional inequalities that other hon. Members have mentioned in funding for councils such as Essex. Despite the growing levels of demand on services, Essex is underfunded compared to many other areas. In Essex, the funding level is £271 per person per year for services, whereas the figure elsewhere is much higher, doubling to £563 per person in parts of London. As a result of those pressures, the council is looking at making very difficult decisions just to close the £176 million funding gap.

At the moment, the council is consulting on proposals to change library services, which could lead to seven of the eight libraries in the Witham constituency closing if community management proposals do not come forward. I should add that that is not the sole answer when it comes to addressing library services. The total budget for libraries is about £13 million, and, while there may be some merit in looking at ways in which to bring more community management and involvement into our libraries and modernise services, the potential impact on our communities is significant. I do not think anyone in the House can dispute that, especially given that reductions in the libraries budget will make barely a dent in the £176 million savings target.

No one will be surprised to learn that I have met many residents throughout my constituency who are campaigning passionately to save our libraries, including those in Wickham Bishops, Kelvedon and Coggeshall. They want those vital services and facilities to remain open. I hope that the Government will reflect on what they can do in the long term to continue to safeguard the community lifelines about which so many of us feel so strongly.

The issue of planning and development is highly controversial in many parts of the country, but it is incredibly controversial from an Essex perspective. We want to see communities, not housing estates, being built. In Essex, and especially in my part of Essex, we know that the building of new homes is absolutely right because it gives families more security, including financial security, but we are aware of the challenges that local authorities face in respect of the five-year land supply.

My communities are open-minded about development, but they are frustrated by a lack of infrastructure and a lack of support. We must be radical in our use of, for instance, the new homes bonus to support more infrastructure, and change the way in which we support local government funding across the country.

17:36

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). Being married to a councillor, she will appreciate most acutely the tough decisions that councillors must make. Let me begin my speech by thanking councillors of all political parties for their work. Looking around the Chamber this afternoon, I see many Members who I know have served as councillors, in senior leadership roles or as back-benchers. I believe that one of them is still serving as a local authority member today. No councillor stands for election to deal with a five-year budget forecast. They do so for good reason, to help the local communities. We should always remember that, regardless of the decisions that they are forced to make.

That leads me neatly to the main points that I want to make. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) began by talking about the overall global figures that are affecting local government finances. The speeches that we have heard from Members on both sides of the House today have shown that every Member, everywhere, has a series of problems that can be attributed to the way in which the local authority is either run or funded. I agree with the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) that when this is fixed, a rising tide will lift all those problems. Sadly, however, that rising tide will simply drown some of them, either because they cannot keep pace or because they are already enmeshed in problems that no amount of additional funding will solve.

What we need to think about—and I offer this as a radical suggestion which I hope the Government will consider—is moving away from the idea that we fund councils, fund the police service and fund clinical commissioning groups, and adopt a place-based approach to the way in which money goes into a community. One of the things that we do very well on the Public Accounts Committee is following the taxpayer pound. We have noticed continually that consequential impacts of a decision by a clinical commissioning group will drive up the costs of a service in a local authority. The decision by a police commissioner to close a police station—as is happening in Stoke-on-Trent—pushes up the incidence of antisocial behaviour. It will then be said that it is the council’s responsibility. Littering because of the lack of a recycling service will become detritus, with bricks left on streets. It becomes vandalism.

So many things happen not because of local authority funding, but because of the way in which we fund our entire public service. If the Government and, I hope, our own Front-Benchers—who I can see are listening—would seriously consider that place-based funding, we could eradicate some of the problems without necessarily having to throw lots of money at them. I know that that will not be easy, but if we are serious about a sustainable long-term public sector, we are going to have be honest about it.

The same goes for our social care funding arrangements. The National Audit Office report shows that 80% of social care budgets are overspent. I am pretty sure that if the Ministers at the Dispatch Box were to design a system today for funding adult social care, they would not say, “Let’s take the value of a property from the 1970s and its total value across an entire geographical area determined by a review in the 1970s and say that incremental increases of 2% every year is the best way to fund adult social care.” It is the way that we do it, but it is not the way we would design. If we are genuinely serious about tackling the funding issues in local government, we are going to have to look at the way in which we fund these things long-term and not simply tinker at the edges hoping to massage the figures so that marginal constituencies in one part of the country are better off at the expense of safer constituencies for Opposition parties elsewhere, which is what we talk about in fair funding formulas if we are being brutally honest.

[Mr Betts]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting point about Total Place and how we should approach things, and we had some evidence on that in our recent Select Committee inquiry into local government funding. Does he accept however, that in order to hold that all together we need some local accountability, so we ought to be looking at how we devolve some of those powers to local government, and with it a better system of funding, as my hon. Friend has rightly said?

[Gareth Snell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that and for presciently leading on to my next point, which is about how devolution settlements work and the myriad different settlements that we have, across England predominantly, with city deals, local enterprise partnership arrangements or mayoral combined authorities. That means there are lots of arrangements we can look at to find best practice and then share it. There are examples of mayoral authorities dealing with their housing crisis in clever ways which traditional two-tier local authority areas have neither the capacity in their staff base to do, to be candid, nor perhaps the demand in their local areas for.

If we are to have that accountability structure, there needs to be a greater role for the Department, whatever it might be called. Civil servants from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government were asked a very simple question at a recent appearance before the Public Accounts Committee: “You say local authority funding is sustainable; what is the matrix by which you make that assessment?” The civil servants were very good at answering some questions, but were unable to give us an exact demonstration of how they make that decision. The NAO disagreed with them on a fact-based, evidence-based assessment, yet when that question was put by numerous members of the Committee, some more vociferously than others, they were unable to give us a clear explanation of how they make those sorts of determinations. If we are going to be serious about the way in which local government is funded, there has to be strong overview and oversight by Departments, but we also need to trust local government.

Local government has been given a series of new responsibilities. I was a councillor and I know that local authorities welcome new responsibilities because it allows them to flex their muscles and do things in an imaginative and innovative way. However, they are restricted in how they are able to deliver them—they find themselves straitjacketed—and they suddenly find themselves carrying unnecessary burdens in order to deliver something that they know they could do better if they were allowed to. They do not make a hash of it but they end up not reaching their full potential.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My hon. Friend is making some good points, but does he also agree that one of the Government’s mistakes in terms of devolution is holding to the idea that that can be done only if there is a mayor? That has led to some very strange situations. For example, in the north-east we have a hotch-potch of different responsibilities in different areas.

[Gareth Snell]

I entirely agree, and the same goes for LEP boundaries. If we are going to do this, there has to be a way forward that fits local area needs.

According to the NAO, £6 billion is currently tied up between section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy. That is a huge amount of money, but the CIL aspect of that cannot be spent on building new affordable housing because it is for low-level infrastructure. I urge the Minister to review that. It is a pot of money that exists in local authorities that could be unlocked to readily transform the way in which our local authorities work.

At its best local government is flexible, lean and hungry to do things, but that agility is fast becoming fragility, and I fear that if there is one more knock to the system everything will shatter.

17:45

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

Thank you for this opportunity to speak in the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, and it is a pleasure to follow my fellow Public Accounts Committee member, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). We debate many of these things on a regular basis. I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who is also a member of the Committee, on having organised this debate and ensuring that it occurred. I want to talk about a couple of points, primarily about policy perspectives relating to housing and planning, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) also mentioned.

Before I do that, I should like to refer gently to the points raised by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I do not want to get too political, but the problem with baselining everything at 2010 is that we all know in our heart of hearts that that is not the right place to start. I know that from the perspective of local government, because I was a councillor for four years before 2010 and I can recall the amount of money that was sloshing around in the system. Quite frankly, there was too much money in the system because some councils did not know how to spend it and were certainly not spending it effectively. We have to be careful when we go back to those kinds of baselines, not least because that arrangement was unsustainable on a national level and inopportune in many areas at local level.

Moving on to the policy points, I have a couple of suggestions for my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. One is about an issue that deserves greater attention in housing policy. The other about is fracking, which is a favourite interest of mine and which many Members are already bored by. On housing, I know from debates such as these, from discussions in the Select Committee and from watching what is happening across the midlands and the north of England that the national planning policy framework—useful though it is in many areas—is becoming a somewhat blunt tool in other parts, particularly around housing. We see the emphasis on house building, particularly in the midlands and the north, which I welcome. I welcome the 217,000 houses that were built last year and the 35,000 housing starts in the first quarter. We can also see the huge pipeline of planning permissions that has built up to an average of 350,000 a year over the past few years.

The policies are obviously working, but we have to ask ourselves whether they are becoming a slightly blunt tool. Areas in the midlands and the north are being asked to take large swathes of housing, but if we look at the best proxy for housing, which is house prices over the past 10 years or so, we see that there has been either no increase in house prices or a real-terms house price drop. I would like us to consider moving the national planning policy framework towards a more regional approach. We obviously have a problem in the south-east and around London, and it is absolutely appropriate that we should address that, but in other areas we might need to think again.

I shall move on to fracking, as I do on a semi-regular basis in this place. The reason that I bring it up regularly is that I do not think everyone in this place really understands the consequences of our fracking policy and where it might end up. If we do not understand it now, we run the risk of facing some very large bills in the future, along with the significant impact on many communities including mine, where we have a fracking application in Marsh Lane at the top of my constituency. No one in Government has ever been clear on what the purpose of fracking is.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

One of the problems that I have considered when thinking about fracking is that if we do it at scale, the impact on the environment and the countryside will be huge, but if we do not do it at scale, the benefit will be so small as to make it not worth pursuing.

[Lee Rowley]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I do not want us to get into too much of a debate on fracking. I recognise that it has an impact, but the danger is that we will end up with Members on both sides just discussing fracking.

[Lee Rowley]

I will absolutely take your steer on this, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The key point that I was coming to, without getting too generic about it, is that we do not yet know the outcome of the consultation that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government ran last year on loosening the planning rules around permitted development and the national significant infrastructure project. I would be very keen to see that outcome. We can discuss my wider concerns about fracking at another time, but I really hope that we can determine that this will not go ahead, because in communities such as mine, it is not wanted.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not want to upset Mr Deputy Speaker, but this is a very relevant issue, because fracking is part of local planning policy. Can I invite both my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake)—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Can I help by saying that I still make the decisions? I do not want this to descend into a debate purely about fracking. It can be referred to in passing, of course, and I recognise the planning implications, but I do not want to get into a full-blown debate on fracking. I will still make the decisions.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I certainly do not want to debate the matter with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you are obviously in the right, but I would just like to invite my hon. Friends to my constituency. I do not believe that fracking will industrialise the countryside. Some 90% of my constituency is covered by petroleum exploration and development licences, and fracking is perfectly compatible with current gas exploration in my constituency. Please come and see it.

[Lee Rowley]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I will move on from this subject quickly, having made my points. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will consider my points about fracking, decommissioning costs and the NPPF.

There is an awful lot of discussion about the distribution of money, and I recognise that Derbyshire County Council, which is ably led by Barry Lewis, and North East Derbyshire District Council, which is now Conservative-led for the first time in 40 years, are now having to grapple with many of the issues talked about in this debate. I accept that there is a real debate about distribution, but there is also a debate about the overall funding envelope for local government.

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee—there are many esteemed colleagues in the Chamber who are or have been members of the Committee—I know that it is charged with looking at value for money in the public sector, and we regularly see millions or billions of pounds not being spent effectively or efficiently or not securing the correct outcomes. If we lose that from the debates around topics such as this, we lose a key part of what we should be doing as Members of Parliament. We should be discussing not only how much we spend, but what we spend, where we spend it and what the outcomes are. That focus on outcomes has been lost in political discourse since at least 2017, if not before, and I hope it returns not just to this debate, but to wider British politics as a whole.

17:52

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I want to focus my remarks on housing. However, before getting on to that topic, I want to make a few other points, starting with the financing of local government as a whole, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) described so well. We need to take a serious look at how we fund local authorities and at the demands we place on them. We know that the business rate system is broken, which harms businesses and means that we are not getting the local economic growth that we need to see business thrive. We are also seeing more and more online businesses, which also has serious consequences as well. We must review the business rates and council tax systems and seek a much fairer system of funding local authorities.

We also need to determine what local authorities are there to do. Over my short time in this place, more and more of that determination is being done at Westminster, but then powers have been taken away and councils have not been given the necessary resources. In effect, we have seen risk shifted on to local authorities, but they have not been given the resources to address their needs. That cannot be the right way forward, so we need a review ahead of the comprehensive spending review, because how can we have a spending review if we do not know what we are spending or how are we going to fund it? Time is short, and I say to the Minister we need to get a move on because local authorities are struggling. We can see that in how services are being cut in our areas, and we have heard about the severe impacts on local communities from right across the Chamber today.

I also urge the Minister to look at youth services. We do not have a statutory youth service, and that is having a massive knock-on impact on all sorts of other services. A place-based approach is important so that we can understand how to move prevention up local authority agendas. I urge the Minister to examine how we can fund a youth service, because we know that prevention makes such a difference and, ultimately, is cheaper than having to address the effects of things going wrong.

I also urge the Minister to look at the high-needs education budget within a wider scope, as we need to get this right. Local authorities are having to provide that resource, but my local authority is in deficit as a result—£760,000 last year, and a predicted £1.3 million this year and £1.9 million next year. This is about funding services for the most vulnerable people in our communities, our young people, to ensure they have the best chances in life. I therefore urge the Minister to ensure it is properly funded come the comprehensive spending review.

I am sure all hon. Members are frustrated that the Government have promised us so many times that they will address social care. After Dilnot in 2011, we were promised a Bill in 2012, but it never emerged. Seemingly on an annual cycle, we are promised Green Papers, White Papers and all sorts. We have to remember these are just discussion documents, not action plans, yet nothing has emerged. We have a real social care crisis.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on how we should approach social care, because I believe we need a much more therapeutic approach. The relationship with the health service is therefore important, and funding social care and providing security, particularly for older and vulnerable people, needs to be a priority for this Administration. We cannot wait.

I asked a question the other day, and we now know we will not have the Green Paper before the summer, which means we are just kicking the can further down the road. Of course, older people are struggling to fund their social care needs at the most vulnerable time in their life. That just cannot be right, so I urge the Minister to ensure social care is properly funded. Personally, I would prefer to see a more universal approach to social care, and I believe that joining it up with the national health service would be the best way to deliver it.

I return to housing through the prism of what is happening in York Central. It is fair enough that the Government have an ambition to build 300,000 housing units, not that it will be easy to deliver, but frankly their target is of no use whatsoever if those units will be second homes and assets for investors, not homes in which people can afford to live. It is a shame that the Minister is not listening, because this is crucial to the development and growth of our city.

The reality is that the housing being built at York Central will not be affordable to the residents of York. We have a housing crisis in our city because, over the years, successive councils have not built the houses our city needs. As a result, people who are desperate for a home are constantly coming to my surgery, and all I ever get back from the council—a Lib Dem administration—is a letter saying, “We do not have enough houses.” Yet, time and time again, the council passes planning applications to build luxury apartments worth £300,000 to £500,000, which nobody in my city can afford as it is 11 to 19 times the average wage.

We will therefore see all these housing units being ticked off on a chart, which the Government can quote and say, “Look at how many houses we have built.” But they are not homes in which people can afford to live, so they will move into the private rented sector or they will be assets or weekend homes. They are not the homes we need.

The imbalances we have in York are having a massive impact on our care sector, because care workers and people working in the NHS cannot afford to live in our city. We have more than 500 vacancies, which is skewing the whole economy in the private sector and the public sector. It is simply a broken system, and it has to be addressed.

The local authority has paid £10 million up front into the York Central site, with potentially another £35 million of borrowing—money the council will not see, but from which developers will benefit. This will therefore have a massive negative impact on people living in York. I understand the housing infrastructure fund was important for unlocking the site, because it is a rail-locked site, but what are we unlocking it for? The reality is that the plans were predicated on the local authority being able to generate resource from the enterprise zone, which is fair enough in itself, but when the size of the enterprise zone is reduced by a third, it is not going to be able to get its revenue from business rates, which was predicted at £133 million. Therefore, the income will be reduced, which means that the return to the local authority will be reduced and the maths simply does not work for anyone but the developers, who are clearly laughing at the Government’s decision to press ahead with this.

Ultimately, local authority money has been put into this site and will not be seen again by the people of our city. That cannot be right, so we have to look at how local authority money works together with other revenue streams to bring benefit to local people. Putting local needs at the heart of this is really important. Why is it so important for our city? I have already mentioned that this housing is unaffordable, but the impact of this is a reduction in the opportunity for the local authority to grow the economic base of our city. As a result, less revenue will come into our city, which will be seriously detrimental in the long term. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build York as a city for the future, so I urge the Minister to look at these funding streams once again.

18:00

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate; we are discussing integral parts of policy for the key regeneration of towns such as Fenton and Longton in my constituency. Both towns have high streets and markets that rely on increased footfall to secure their future. That means unlocking derelict brownfield sites around our towns for more housing that residents need, attracting new businesses into empty units, and improving facilities and the sense of destination for visitors.

Retail sales have been falling and high street stores have been closing. First, from out-of-town retail parks, and now from online retailing, our town centre are increasingly feeling the squeeze. Online now makes up just under 20% of retail sales, according to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics. That percentage will likely continue to increase, and the high street needs to adapt if we are not to lose these important centres. It must be helped to adapt by the policies of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Last week The Daily Telegraph reported that one in three shops that close in the current market will not reopen as shops in the future. It is clear that our town centres can no longer be so dependent on retail to survive as they once were. It is essential that we attract new and innovative uses; we need to see more people living in our town centres and a range of different businesses moving in to fill empty spaces. It would be fantastic to see these properties, many of which make up the rich and historic fabric of our towns, brought back to life. There is a high demand for small and medium-sized business units, and there is no reason why these properties could not be converted, especially for new start-up businesses and footloose digital businesses. We must incentivise property owners to convert their premises to alternative uses, and remove the barriers and restrictions that currently exist. Our use-based planning system needs to be aware of these trends and be flexible in response, not getting too bogged down in restrictive use categories that threaten the future of our high streets. Why should we not relax class uses on all our empty town centre properties? The perfect plan cannot be the enemy of the demanded good. That also includes flexibility for temporary and pop-up ventures.

We also must see the investment that is so vital for the future of our town centres. In a property market such as that of Stoke-on-Trent, with many Victorian town centre properties in a poor state of repair, owners may find themselves investing more in converting and renovating than the property is actually worth. This is where it is essential that our bid to the future high streets fund for Longton is successful. Prior to the announcement of this fund, I lobbied Ministers in Her Majesty’s Treasury to create just such a fund, directed at our town centres. Our bid for Longton must receive some of this funding, and I urge Ministers to throw their weight behind it. Without future high streets funding, many properties in the town centre are likely to continue to remain derelict and the town centre will continue to decline.

It is also extremely important that we see stronger towns funding directed at towns such as Longton and Fenton and across my constituency. These are parts of the country and communities that have previously felt left behind but that have huge potential to blossom, with the right support. These towns must be given the chance to thrive again, and to be the beating hearts they once were. Perhaps they will no longer be the bastions of retail they once were, but there are so many other exciting possibilities. That might mean more pop-up art installations or performances, fringe festivals, or have-a-go activity weekends. For example, this weekend the iconic Gladstone Pottery Museum in my constituency will host the ninth annual Longton beer festival, which is certainly an event that I look forward to participating in.

Longton’s visitor economy used to be sufficiently robust to support three hotels in the town centre, but unfortunately that is no longer the case. So much is still unique and different about our town centres, and if that was lost it would leave our communities much worse off and damaged. That is why the Longton heritage action zone is so important, to preserve what is historically unique and to make best use for the future. Increasing the footfall in our town centres and recharging our tourism economy is a key aim of the heritage action zone that Stoke-on-Trent City Council is taking forward with Historic England. The council is refurbishing the old town hall as a local service centre, and the fantastic Victorian market hall is also receiving investment, including new public toilet facilities.

We also see private investment coming into Longton, with a number of new retailers having set up recently, and the Exchange shopping precinct has invested in the refurbishment of the main retail complex, which will help to bring much-needed increased footfall into the town centre. We must continue to build on such successes.

The old town hall in Fenton is being brought back into use, thanks to the owner, Justin Meath Baker. A whole range of new businesses are moving in, and the local centre is due to relocate there soon. In addition, planning permission has recently been granted for a £17 million mixed community housing development right in the centre of the town, alongside the £8 million new build scheme that is already under construction for sheltered housing. Like many cities, Stoke-on-Trent is attractive to people who increasingly value town-centre urban living, and we have, of course, six historic market towns to choose from.

Although period properties are attractive for residential use and create a real sense of place by saving historic architecture, the upfront cost of converting historical buildings to residential use, or of modernising much of the Victorian terrace stock, has often unfortunately proven too costly. In low-value markets, sales for more than the property value can often be realised. The wider context of a high-supply, low-demand Victorian terrace market has previously undermined confidence in the market for building specific types of new housing more suited to the 21st century. There can be an imbalance: we see high demand for certain types of housing locally that currently is not being met by the local market. For example, Stoke-on-Trent is probably the only city in the UK of its size that does not really have a strong, functional private rented sector apartment market. We need more developers to take the risk, because we do have the demand for flexible styles of living, what with two universities and one of the largest hospitals in the country.

The council has been doing some excellent work to disrupt the market, to tempt new types of housing development into the city and get brownfield sites developed. When developers do progress sites, those sites now under development have seen high rates of sale, with properties on new build sites throughout the city selling much quicker than was initially expected. We must do more to help to meet the growing demands, and especially to see the redevelopment of the brownfield sites in and around our towns that suffer from the additional costs of previous industrial use. There is no justification for demand to be suppressed. We must give the market the confidence to invest in housing products such as PRS and executive homes, which investors would not always be willing to do in markets such as Stoke-on-Trent.

In 2015, Stoke-on-Trent City Council secured housing zone status, making it one of 20 pioneering authorities outside London. As a result, the council has worked with developers to activate schemes on stalled sites to deliver new homes. Not only is this enhancing the local housing offer, but it is boosting confidence by testing and proving the market for such homes. I would like to see much more dedicated funding available for a broader range of developers who are dedicated to bringing empty retail space into residential use. That could really help to meet local housing needs. There has been an unwillingness for the private sector to take the risks needed where the market is untested and of lower value, so market-making measures are needed to help to de-risk development. I very much welcome the engaging approach that the Department has taken to confronting such challenges, and hope that we see that approach continue.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is a key ministry not only because of its funding but because of what its policies can enable and facilitate forward-looking local authority leaders—like our fantastic new council leader in Stoke-on-Trent, Councillor Abi Brown—to achieve locally. The work we have done in Stoke-on-Trent has seen Conservatives top the poll in the local elections for the first time ever, doubling the number of Conservatives on the council. I congratulate every single one of our new and re-elected Conservative councillors in Stoke-on-Trent. We need to continue to develop our proposals and to improve our communities, so that we see the city move forward.

18:10

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton). I appreciate some of the points that he made, particularly on social housing and on how Stoke is taking on the same challenges that face so many of us.

I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who is currently not in her place, for securing such an important debate. I am obviously delighted to support her as I, too, put in to speak in the debate.

Clearly, local government faces huge challenges. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, the cuts faced by MHCLG have been far greater than those faced by any other Department. It is our local authorities that have borne the brunt of austerity as, of course, have our communities with the cuts to so many of their services—whether it be the hostels provided for those coming out of prison or the Army or those who are victims of domestic abuse. Certainly, we have seen significant cuts in Warwickshire. We have seen cuts to children’s services; closure of children’s centres; cuts to waste and recycling; cuts to fire and rescue services; cuts to our libraries—and the list goes on.

I want to concentrate the rest of my remarks on social housing. As chair of the Parliamentary Campaign for Council Housing, I have been pressing for more social rented housing since I arrived in Parliament. It is well understood that we are facing a housing emergency: 277,000 people are homeless; 1.1 million households are on waiting lists; and young families spend three times more on housing costs than they did 50 years ago. Just 6,000 social rented homes were built last year. Warwick District Council, which more or less overlaps my constituency, has built just eight social rented properties in the past four years, despite the fact that 2,000 people were on the waiting list.

I have been making my case ever since I arrived in this place, and I regard housing as the No. 1 priority for all of us in this House. We must fix this housing crisis. Shelter reports that 3.1 million homes need to be built in the next 20 years to meet the demand of those at the sharp end of housing need, particularly the younger trapped renters and the older renters, too. Back in the 1950s, in response to Churchill’s challenge, Macmillan, as Housing Minister, built 200,000 council homes. Meeting the housing need will happen only with significant investment in social rented council housing.

It is social housing that is desperately needed. Since 1980, house building in this country has been distorted by various policies, which have resulted in an average of just 25,000 social homes being built a year, compared with 125,000 during the post-war period. That is a loss of 100,000 units per year—4 million in total. The question that I want to put to the Minister is simple: how best can we use that £8.5 billion allocated to housing and planning? That is a significant sum and accounts for 80% of the total MHCLG budget.

This year, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government estimates that it will spend £3.9 billion on affordable homes—although that is often a misnomer. As well as home ownership options such as part-buy, there will also be social rented housing. To put this into context, back in 1953, in one year alone, the then Conservative Government invested £11.35 billion at today’s prices. Clearly, we are not doing enough. From speaking to Members across the House, I have learned that there is widespread support for increasing the budget. Where we differ is the proportion that should be spent on social housing, and there is real clear blue water between us on how that should be funded.

This call for a massive increase in social rented housing is echoed by Shelter. In its report produced by the Social Housing Commission, it concluded that there was a need for 3.1 million homes over a 20-year period, equating to 155,000 homes a year, of which I believe 100,000 at least should be council houses. I proposed that to the House on 13 June, and it was supported. This number is not pie in the sky; it was supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and, indeed, by Baroness Warsi. The only way councils will hit these kinds of numbers is through grant funding direct to councils, ring-fenced for building social rented housing. London Economics estimates that £10.7 billion is needed per year—less in real terms than the figure that was being spent in 1953.

It would be easy to think that the lifting of the local authority borrowing cap will be sufficient to provide the funding needed, but it will not. Don’t get me wrong—the lifting of the cap is very welcome, although long overdue. However, it is estimated to result in only £3.4 billion of investment in building council homes over the next four years. What is fundamentally wrong with the provision of housing is that too much money is being spent on the wrong schemes. The Help to Buy scheme falls within the remit of MHCLG. In my view, this scheme is totally the wrong priority and is simply being used to maintain inflated house prices and the bloated profits of house builders and developers.

This year, the Help to Buy scheme will once more account for the largest share of housing spend at £4.1 billion. The National Audit Office reports that two thirds of this—£2.7 billion—is in effect being used to subsidise homebuyers who could have bought a home without it, and one in 25 of those homebuyers had household incomes of over £100,000. Surely it would be better to use the £4.1 billion to build 40,000 social rented homes instead. Beyond MHCLG, there is of course the massive £21 billion being used on housing benefit annually. Again, surely this budget would be better utilised building social rented housing and realising those assets, rather than fuelling the private rental sector at the taxpayers’ expense.

[Mr Betts]

I have quite a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point about the Help to Buy scheme, particularly with regard to the NAO report. Does he agree that, whatever different views there might be, the Government should at least do an evaluation of the Help to Buy scheme before they embark on a further phase of it?

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend always makes an important point, and his knowledge of the sector is unsurpassed. He is absolutely right that we should suspend the scheme and think about how the budget should be used urgently to kick-start a social rented programme.

I say all this because of the pressing and urgent crisis of homelessness and rough sleeping. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) gave us an example of what this crisis looks like across our communities, as our housing markets are distorted by developers. Lord Porter put it very well when he said that a good home provides a good chance of good health, good education and good lives. The reality is that, without good homes, we are seeing a huge increase in social and health-related issues, all of which add to the already great burdens faced by our local services and thus our local authorities.

Local government faces huge challenges indeed: the rising costs and numbers related to children’s services; the crisis that is the unsustainable pressure brought by adult social care; the closure of hostels; the cuts to welfare services; and the closure of children’s centres, libraries and fire stations. But I would assert that the desperate need for social rented housing is at the core of so many of the problems we face. To that end, I urge the Minister to reconsider the allocation of budgets, to slash the support for and suspend Help to Buy, to lay claim to the housing benefit budget and to use that money to kick-start the industrial-scale social housing that our society desperately needs.

18:18

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

It is a great opportunity to speak in this important debate, and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western).

Local government is at the heart of what we all do as constituency MPs. We are all put on these Benches to stand up for our local communities, and that has certainly been at the centrepiece of all my campaigns and everything I have done since I have been lucky enough to represent the wonderful new town of Redditch.

The context of this debate has been articulated clearly by many Members: spending had to be constrained, for all sorts of reasons, by an incoming Government in 2010. That seems like a long time ago, but in financial terms it is really a very short period. Difficult decisions had to be made. Local and county councils have been at the frontline of some of those decisions with the priorities that had to be set. Some of them have done an extremely good job under very difficult circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) pointed out that we must always think about efficiency and how we are spending hard-working taxpayers’ money. I pay tribute to the work that has been done in Redditch to that end. I will therefore focus on the needs of Redditch and what we are doing in the local area, and then touch on adult social care.

I have been proud to work, together with my colleagues, on a campaign that we call Unlock Redditch, which is about releasing the potential of our town. It is a new town that faces challenges similar to those in other communities up and down the country. I very much thank our local council officers and the wonderful team of colleagues led by Councillor Matt Dormer, who has been successful in bucking the national trend in election results for the last three elections in a row. We have made gains on our local district council, which is doing an absolutely immense job in championing the needs of our area. In recent times, plans have been put forward to build over 600 new council homes, mostly bungalows. This is the first council house building programme in Redditch since 1998. Account has been taken of the needs of some of the most vulnerable groups in society. A new policy has been brought in to exempt care leavers from council tax. We are working very hard on our future high streets fund bid. We are also bidding for heritage action zones funding. I see the Minister is taking notes. We really want this bid to be successful.

Although we are a new town, we are built around a historic core. We have a beautiful church in our town centre surrounded by a lovely green. It is an attractive place for people to come to, but, like most areas, it needs just a little bit of TLC. That would really boost our town’s chances of being at the forefront as a tourism destination for leisure and shopping, helping to lure people away from the charms of inner-city Birmingham and Solihull—because, after all, who wants to go there when they could go to the Kingfisher shopping centre in Redditch? Of course, you are very welcome yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know you have many friends in Redditch, and they would be pleased to see you there. We have also been successful in implementing grants from the LEP. We want to see our train station redeveloped and the line dualled so that we can much more easily travel into Birmingham for leisure and for work.

I want to say a little bit about adult social care. It is common knowledge that the pressures on adult social care are causing immense difficulties, and it is no different in Worcestershire. Our county council is spending some £187.7 million on the social care budget generally, a large proportion of which is on adult social care. When I came into this role—I have been an MP for only two years—I remember having my first meetings with Worcestershire County Council and being told that the county used to have so-called £1 million families who, due to a combination of needs, needed £1 million-worth of support. There were a few of those families, and of course that placed pressure on services. Now we are seeing more so-called £10 million families. Need is always rising, and these families are the most vulnerable. They have a complex picture of needs, taken together, whether to do with housing, multiple disability or education and schooling. Such a family must have the support that we all want them to have, but it becomes much more difficult to meet the ever rising level of demand.

We have often attempted as politicians to answer the conundrum of doing more on social care. Frankly, that was an absolute disaster in the 2017 election—I think we can all be honest about that. We tried to come up with policies to tackle the issue, as we needed to do, but the heat and light of an election was absolutely the wrong time to do it. It became a political football and a toxic issue. It was utterly the wrong way to do it. We must get together across the Benches—I think there is an appetite for that—to look at things such as the German model, advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant). I have learned a lot from my hon. Friend. We have to think about how to harness the wealth locked up in people’s homes and how we contribute as a society to making this the best country in the world at taking care of elderly people.

I am sure that our two leadership candidates are watching this debate—they have nothing better to do. I absolutely believe that both of them will focus on adult social care. They, like all of us, will have constituents with such issues in their surgeries and affected family members. I have spoken about my mother’s dementia—a catastrophic illness, and the care costs can escalate. Our next Prime Minister has to have adult social care on the agenda. Whoever makes that a priority will receive my full support.

18:25

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

I deliberately left it late to put in for this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker; I thought that if we were voting, I might get a good audience. I hoped that that audience might include my right hon. Friends the Members for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) so that I could take one of two opportunities. Option A was that I could try out for any ministerial posts available in the next couple of weeks; option B, if I was not that lucky, was maybe to lobby about some of the things I have been particularly interested in.

I am sure you will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that on 26 June last year, the all-party parliamentary group on excellence in the built environment, which I chair, recommended that there should be a new homes ombudsman—better redress for home buyers. Someone buying a new house for a couple of hundred thousand pounds who finds there are problems with it has fewer rights than if they had bought an electric kettle. My all-party group recommended that and, quick as anything—12 months later, almost exactly to the day—the Government launched a consultation on that very topic. I could have saved them the trouble; they could simply read the APPG’s excellent report and we could just get on with it. If all goes really badly for me in future, maybe I can apply for the ombudsman job instead.

It is important for us to think about safety. There is a lot of talk post-Grenfell about ACM materials, but the excellent Nathaniel Barker from Inside Housing did a report recently highlighting that in March last year 44 councils had fire doors that were non-compliant or possibly non-compliant. Twelve months later, half those councils have not changed a single door. How often do we walk in and out of buildings and see that compartmentalisation has been affected because somebody has put through central heating or wiring and affected the integrity of the building? Fire doors might be propped open or their intumescent strip is faulty in some way. Let us not just focus on ACM materials, but also on the relatively simple stuff that we all see every day. Let us make sure that all fire doors in all buildings are compliant. That was an excellent report from Nathaniel.

The Government could also do something a little more simple on improving safety: they could endorse my private Member’s Bill that suggests that there should be carbon monoxide detectors in all new builds and privately or socially rented homes, so that we can protect people.

However, I wanted to spend most of my speech haggling with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). I agree that Help to Buy is not as effective as it could be, but I disagree about the natural heir to the scheme. In my humble opinion, shared ownership is the future. If we replaced Help to Buy, an extra 15,000 houses could be generated in demand for shared ownership. If someone wants to buy a £230,000 property unaided, they need to be earning about £47,000 a year. If they are buying it through Help to Buy, they need to be earning about £38,000 a year. However, if they buy it through 25% of shared ownership, they could be earning as little as £21,000 a year. For people in my constituency, where the average income is about £27,000 a year and the average property price is £127,000, shared ownership is the future. It is a great way of getting people on to the property ladder. They can access it with relatively low incomes and a relatively low deposit, and it is the best way to establish a home-owning democracy.

That was a whistle-stop tour, Mr Deputy Speaker, but thank you for your time.

18:30

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

We have had a thorough and full debate, and I think quite a thoughtful debate from those on both sides of the House. I add my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for choosing the topic of Housing, Communities and Local Government for this estimates day debate.

I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for the way in which she opened the debate. She set out a very real concern that is felt across all parties in this House about the impact of a decade of constraints on local government and the effect that that is now having on our public services. However, it would be remiss of me not to say that she and the Liberal Democrats displayed a little bit of collective amnesia, because they were in government between 2010 and 2015. It does seem that “Sorry” is the hardest word. In her defence, she said that she campaigned against these cuts as a candidate, but her Ministers slashed and burned many of the services she referred to. The crisis in local government today, the crisis in adult social care today and the crisis in children’s services today have their roots in the coalition years, and the Minister for local government was a Liberal Democrat—he is now Lord Stunell of Hazel Grove—although he occasionally got locked in the Opposition Lobby in votes, which is perhaps why he was very quickly moved.

I want to pay tribute to the other contributions: from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who is the Chair of the Select Committee and brings so much knowledge to these debates; from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western); and from the Conservatives, the hon. Members for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and the hon. Members for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) and for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes).

I want to echo the right hon. Member for Witham, who mentioned that she is married to a councillor. It would be really remiss of me not to mention that I, too, am married to a councillor—Councillor Allison Gwynne—on Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council. I am incredibly proud that both my councils have, since May, had a female leader. The councils are very ably led by two incredible Labour women. Councillor Brenda Warrington, the leader of Tameside, has been joined by Councillor Elise Wilson, the new leader of Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. They are both doing great work. I also want to thank all our dedicated council staff and councillors of all political persuasions and none for the incredible work that they do in making sure our communities are looked after. While they have continued to work hard and to lobby for the resources they need to do their job, they know—and we know actually—just how hard that job has become over the last few years. The debate has put out the message in various ways, but it is the same on both sides of the House: increasing concern about the growing crisis in local government funding and the huge cost pressures, particularly in children and adult services.

The consequence of the cost pressures in those people-based services is that the place-based services—the neighbourhood services—are squeezed. The conundrum for local councillors is that most people think that their council is there to deliver the place-based services. They are the things that they see: bins being emptied, streets being swept, parks being maintained, libraries being open and youth centres existing. Those services are squeezed to pay for the pressures in children and adult services.

I will rattle off a few figures: 763 youth centres and more than 700 libraries have closed, and Sure Start has been cut in half, since 2010. Yet local government is the beating heart of our communities. Our councils keep our streets cleaner and safer, protect the most vulnerable in society and maintain our green spaces. When we inevitably grow older, we hope that our councils will be there to provide the services to give us dignity in old age.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central said, we should work towards Total Place. The previous Labour Government were keen on developing the notion that all public bodies, across the public sector, should work towards the same strategy and outcomes, and ensure that there are proper joined-up, people-based services. Our councils are the lynchpin of providing cohesive, joined-up public services, whether housing, police and crime prevention, leisure services, youth services or public health, which widens into the national health service.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I understand that the hon. Gentleman’s preference was not for making cuts to local authorities over the past few years, and he makes a good case for that. However, faced with the challenge in 2010 of balancing the books against a backdrop of £153 billion annual deficit, where would he have made the cuts?

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Gentleman should realise that we are almost a decade into austerity and local government has taken the biggest hit of any Department. There is a reason for that. It is easy to pass the blame from Whitehall to town and county halls throughout the country. The Conservative Government have hung the hon. Gentleman’s councillors as much as Labour councillors out to dry.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will not give way just now.

In the past decade, local government in England has lost 60p out of every pound that the previous Labour Government invested in our communities, in local services, in the glue that binds our communities together. The estimates debated today will sadly offer no relief to local government. The only major change from last year in the funds for local government is for business rates relief. Although it is welcome that the Government are compensating local government for that policy, it is necessary only because the Government have refused to undertake a fundamental review of business rates for which many have called. I am proud to say that the next Labour Government will conduct such a review.

Although the Minister can speak today about increases in local authorities’ spending power in this year’s settlement, it is all smoke and mirrors. Any increases are possible only if all councils increase their council tax by the maximum possible, which would mean eye-watering, inflation-busting tax increases for ordinary households. Council tax now equates to 7% of the income of a low-income family, compared to just 1% for a high-income family. That is not only unfair, but economically incoherent. The poorest areas, those that need the most resources to cope with the growing demands on children’s services and adult services, will never be able to raise the money they need. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham made the point that far less is possible in those areas than in the more well-off areas of the country.

I do not make that point to argue that we should be robbing some areas to fund others, but the fact is that all councils are now struggling and I would guess that that is not lost on the Minister. I hope that he will now be interested in solutions to the problem, because there is a growing chorus of concern from those on the Government Benches behind him. We are seeing a reverse redistribution of funding: a shift away from spending on local services that is based on need and deprivation.

Let me just remind the Minister that, while the Tories have in some cases actually seen spending increases, nine out of the 10 areas that have seen the largest cuts are Labour controlled: Hackney, £1,406 less per household in spending power between 2010-11 and 2019-20; Newham, £1,301; Tower Hamlets, £1,264; Knowsley, £1,057; and Southwark £1,014. Those are eye-watering numbers. Then we look at the other end of the scale: Maidstone, a £678 drop; Tewkesbury, £5.31; Vale of White Horse, £4.12; Tonbridge and Malling, a £4.18 increase; Stratford-on-Avon, a £7.45 per household increase; Uttlesford, a £7.66 increase; Horsham, a £15.68 increase; Wokingham, a £39.31 increase; and the Isles of Scilly, a £336.78 increase. That just is not fair. Not one council that has seen an increase in spending power from 2010-11 to 2019-20 is a Labour council.

What was in this year’s funding settlement? Unfortunately, I am not able to speak today about what the funding situation will look like next year because nobody knows—no one on the Opposition Benches, no one in local government, not even the Minister. Councils would normally have started their budget setting planning process, but they remain completely in the dark about how much funding they will have next year. The Government’s intention was to implement a fair funding review and to increase the percentage of business rates retained locally from April 2020, but the Tory leadership contest has thrown that plan up in the air. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the Lords Economic Affairs Committee earlier this month:

“The plan was to launch the spending review just before the summer recess…I would suggest that’s unlikely given the current timetable of the Conservative leadership election.”

If that is not the case, I recommend that the Minister use this opportunity to set the record straight. I know that everyone in local government would welcome clarity. We need that certainty. Is there going to be a spending review? Is it going to be for four years? Is it going to be for one year? The Minister needs to give clarity.

What we do know from a survey published today by the Local Government Association is that one in three councils is worried that it will be unable to provide the statutory services by the end of this Parliament. That would include services such as: preventing homelessness; ensuring that vulnerable children are safe; ensuring quality of life for all adults; and dignity in old age. We know from the same survey that year-on-year cuts and an unprecedented rise in demand for these services have resulted in one in five councils being concerned that it will not be able to balance the books this year.

In closing, I would like to repeat the words of the Conservative Lord Porter, who said earlier this month:

“If the Government think the policy going forward is to spend all your reserves, and then we will find some new money…after you have spent all your reserves,”

the Secretary of State is going to have to

“explain to the public why those people died because the money was not available… It is always about understanding the cost of everything and the value of nothing.”

Never has a truer word been said. That is the reality, and I genuinely hope that the Minister, whom I respect greatly, will get a grip on his two leadership want-to-bes and insist that they start to fix the decade of neglect and cuts that our communities and local government have endured.

18:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)]

It is a great pleasure to conclude this debate, which I agree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has been very thoughtful. I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on opening it and thank the Backbench Business Committee for securing time for us to discuss a subject that is close to my heart. She can rest assured that the latest report of the Public Accounts Committee on local government sustainability is bedtime reading for me; I have it with me at all times. I thank all hon. Members who contributed to the debate.

We are all here because we value and recognise the invaluable work conducted by councils up and down the country. I join all hon. Members on both sides of the House in paying tribute to our hard-working councillors, and I thank them for everything they do for our local communities. Let me also take this opportunity, on the first day of the Local Government Association conference, to thank the noble Lord Porter for his tenure as chairman of the LGA. He is a genuine giant in the world of local government, he has been a strong champion for the sector, he is respected across the spectrum, and I know he will be sorely missed.

Shortly after I became local government Minister, Lord Porter’s successor, Councillor Jamieson—whom I wish every success too—handed me a document that contained an incredible statistic. He had calculated that councils provide an amazing 800 different services. They really do touch every aspect of our lives as citizens. We heard about a range of those services today.

I will try my best to answer as many of the queries that were raised as possible. Many of them relate to areas that are not my direct responsibility but that of our fantastic Housing Minister. I am pleased to say that he has been here for most of the debate and has heard and absorbed all those queries. With his tagline “more, better, faster”, I know he is relentlessly committed to ensuring that everyone has a safe, decent and affordable home to call their own.

As I reflected on those 800 different services from where I stood, I came to see that there were three major, overarching areas for which councils have responsibility: driving economic growth; helping the most vulnerable in our society; and building strong communities that we are all proud to call home. I am pleased to say that this Government are supporting councils to do all three.

Before addressing the various points that were made in the debate through the prism of those three areas, I want to acknowledge that, of course, local government has been through a challenging period financially. I do not disagree with that; it would be wrong to do so. I agree that the balance of spending has shifted from non-statutory services to statutory services, and it is right that that is addressed in the upcoming spending review. Members can rest assured that, working with Departments such as the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, we are providing an evidence-based and robust account to the Treasury to inform those spending review conversations.

It is important to note why local government was put in that position. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) pointed out excellently, it is incumbent on all Governments to balance the books. The task this Government inherited was significant. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) pointed out, local government had a difficult set of circumstances to deal with. It made some difficult decisions and did extremely well. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) in saluting not just her husband but the entrepreneurship of all local councillors up and down the country in responding to that climate. They truly have done us proud.

I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon that at this point we should look forward, and I am pleased to say that the tide is turning. This year, local councils will have access to over £46 billion in core spending power. That represents not a cut or a fall, but a 3% cash increase on the funds available last year, and a real-terms increase in money available to councils to spend on services.

We heard from Opposition Members about the burden of council tax. The Government and this side of the House will always be on the side of hard-pressed taxpayers, and determined to keep council tax as low as possible. Since the coalition Government came into power in 2010, council tax has risen at an average of just over 2% per annum. We can all remember that under the last Labour Government council tax doubled, going up at a rate of more than 6% every year. Our residents need to know one thing: if they are focused on low council tax and better services, it is a Conservative Government that will deliver them.

A recurring theme in the debate—it was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, and the Chair of the Select Committee—was governance. They were right to raise that issue. Like me, the hon. Lady was not here during the coalition Government, but they decided to abolish the Audit Commission and replace it with a more decentralised framework for oversight and accountability. The Secretary of State confirmed at the LGA today that the Department plans to enhance its role in oversight and leadership of the local authority governance system. His aim is to be able to spot problems more easily and sooner, to support councils and to protect our residents. The Secretary of State is committed to outlining to the Public Accounts Committee by the end of the year the specific steps that he will take in that regard. I know that that is something that many hon. Members have raised today and I hope they will be reassured by that. In conjunction with that work, the Secretary of State has committed to a review of the local audit framework. Again, he will report soon to the Public Accounts Committee on how that should be achieved.

My first theme is economic growth. The money that funds our public services has to come from somewhere, and the only sustainable way to generate those funds is to drive economic growth. Councils play a critical role in that, incentivised and supported by central Government. Our business rates retention scheme means that every authority in England stands to reap the rewards of increased growth in business rates income and will be able to use those rewards to invest in their local economy and community. Through business rates retention, councils now have access to nearly £2.5 billion in additional funds, on top of their core spending power, to fund local services.

Our successful 75% business rates retention pilots were incredibly popular, and 14 pilots are now in operation, benefiting over 100 different local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) reminded us of the importance of all councillors embarking on a journey of efficiency to ensure that their taxpayers’ money is spent incredibly well. Where we can find those efficiencies, we absolutely should.

The Government are championing authorities that are putting digital innovation at the heart of their service delivery and transformation and efficiency programmes. That has the potential to be hugely significant, which is why our new digital declaration is so important, and that ambition is backed by a £7.5 million local digital innovation fund. That is funding projects that have the potential to save money and transform services on the ground. The programme is also providing digital leadership training for hundreds of senior councillors and officers up and down the country, building the local government leaders of tomorrow.

I turn next to councils’ crucial role in helping the most vulnerable in society, and again the Government’s record is strong. We fully back councils that are on the frontline in helping those in need, supporting children, the disabled and the elderly.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has referred to the role of councils in protecting the vulnerable. Does he also recognise that since health-visiting services were passed to them, the number of health visitors has fallen by more than 2,000 nationally—which is not helping young people to get a good start in life—and addiction services have been massively reduced, which means that deaths from alcohol and morbidity from alcohol-related diseases are on the rise? Will he please undertake to review the basis of the commissioning of those services and consider returning them to the NHS, where they belong?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am not sure I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be right for public health responsibility to be returned to the NHS. Local government does not believe that it is right, and since local government has taken on ownership of public health, all the outcomes that I have seen have improved and been delivered more effectively. The Secretary of State recently commented on that. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, and of course it is important for delivery to be carried out well, but I think that the track record is in local government’s favour thus far.

[Mr Betts]

I take a different point of view. When public health was the responsibility of the NHS, the money was kept within the NHS budget, and increased each year in line with NHS funding. Since the transfer to local government, the funds have been cut substantially in real terms. Let us return public health funding to a level at which local government will really deliver.

[Rishi Sunak]

I think we are talking about two different issues. One is the issue of who is responsible for delivering public health, and I am strongly in favour of local government’s continuing responsibility. As for the budget, the Chairman of the Select Committee will know that it is ring-fenced. As that is rolled into business rates retention, it is of course right for there to be a proper governance and assurance mechanism.

The most recent Budget provided £650 million in new funding to help councils respond to pressure on both children’s and adults’ social care, and we have heard much about that today. It comes on top of the billions of pounds of extra funding in previous Budgets for adult social care, and it is starting to make an enormous difference on the ground. The number of delayed transfers of care has fallen by 50% since the peak, and 93% of councils agree that joined-up working with the NHS through the Better Care Fund is improving outcomes.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) set a good challenge for Governments to follow when he spoke of place-based funding. The improved Better Care fund is just one aspect, but we should clearly aim to do more in that direction, pooling budgets locally among different agencies when it makes sense. Manchester is the most evolved model in that regard, and I have enjoyed getting to know the team there and seeing the results that its work is having.

My hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) talked about the importance of a long-term solution. That is not my remit, but I hope that the Secretary of State is giving good consideration to the joint work of the two Select Committees on a social insurance model. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) reminded us that prevention is better than cure, and I fully agree with her.

I am very proud of the work that our Department has done in leading the highly successful troubled families programme, which has supported more than 400,000 families through an innovative early intervention model utilising a key worker and a whole-family approach. The results have been excellent. Children have been saved from going into care, people are coming off benefits and going into work, and crime and antisocial behaviour have been reduced. Ultimately, families are becoming stronger. It is a privilege to meet the people who are executing the programme on the ground, and those visits are some of the most humbling that I make. I know that that programme, and those workers, are making an enormous difference to the lives of some of our most vulnerable citizens.

Finally, let me touch on the work of councils in supporting strong communities. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch about that. The Government see it as a critical task, and we are helping councils to build cohesive, safe and local communities up and down the country—places that we are proud to call home. We have provided additional funds to enable councils to build cohesion in areas on which migration has had a particular impact.

We have worked with my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) to come up with various support schemes for the high streets, which are now worth more than £1.5 billion. We have helped councils to make improvements to local roads—the essential arteries of our community life—with a £420 million fund to deal with potholes. We have provided new money for parks and green spaces, which has brought about the creation of more than 200 “pocket parks”. Those little havens of greenery make all the difference to the community, especially in the more deprived areas.

Just those few examples demonstrate the breadth and depth of our commitment to helping local government to build vibrant and cohesive communities in the places that they serve. Whether they are driving economic growth, caring for the most vulnerable in society or building stronger communities, local councils across the country do an amazing job. That is what makes it such a privilege for me to have this role, and to champion local government in Whitehall and in Westminster. Local government deserves our backing, local government is getting our backing, and I commend the estimates to the House.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54)

19:00

The Speaker put the deferred Questions (Standing Order No. 54).

Estimates 2019-20

Department for International Development

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2020, for expenditure by the Department for International Development—

(1) further resources, not exceeding £3,631,122,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 2154 of Session 2017–19,

(2) further resources, not exceeding £1,923,101,000 be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £5,760,680,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

Department for Education

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2020, for expenditure by the Department for Education—

(1) further resources, not exceeding £35,024,055,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 2154 of Session 2017–19,

(2) further resources, not exceeding £15,813,820,000 be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £48,195,607,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

Department for Work and Pensions

Question put,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2020, for expenditure by the Department for Work and Pensions—

(1) further resources, not exceeding £48,180,879,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 2154 of Session 2017-19,

(2) further resources, not exceeding £362,104,000 be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £49,265,200,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

19:01

Division 425

Ayes: 276

---

Conservative: 268
Democratic Unionist Party: 8

Noes: 45

---

Scottish National Party: 32
Liberal Democrat: 7
Plaid Cymru: 4
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Resolved,

That for the year ending with 31 March 2020, for expenditure by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—

(1) further resources, not exceeding £13,222,573,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 2154 of Session 2017–19,

(2) further resources, not exceeding £5,087,100,000 be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £9,295,168,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

The Speaker then put the Question on the outstanding Estimate (Standing Order No. 55).

Main Estimates 2019-20

Question put,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2020—

(1) further resources, not exceeding £201,202,413,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 2154, HC 2173, HC 2180, HC 2181, HC 2182 and HC 2183 of Session 2017–19,

(2) further resources, not exceeding £24,106,601,000 be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £171,642,347,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Rishi Sunak.)

19:16

Division 426

Ayes: 275

---

Conservative: 266
Democratic Unionist Party: 9

Noes: 43

---

Scottish National Party: 31
Liberal Democrat: 7
Plaid Cymru: 4
Green Party: 1

Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions relating to Main Estimates 2019-20;

That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Elizabeth Truss, Jesse Norman, John Glen and Robert Jenrick bring in the Bill.

Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) (No. 3) Bill

Presentation and First Reading

Jesse Norman accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the year ending 31 March 2020; to authorise both the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund and the application of income for that year; and to appropriate the supply authorised for that year by this Act and by the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2019.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 414).

Business without Debate

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modification) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 16 May, be approved.—(Mike Freer.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the House that I have certified that the regulations apply exclusively to England. The motion could have been subject to double majority voting: the whole House and those representing constituencies in England.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)).

Community Infrastructure Levy

That the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.—(Mike Freer.)

Question agreed to.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am intrigued by the double majority that was required on a voice vote. I wonder whether your ears are so skilfully attuned now that you can distinguish the Ayes and Noes between Members representing seats north and south of the border.

[Mr Speaker]

I did not think that an abnormal level of skill was required. It was evident to me that the motion had been agreed to. The question of whether an abnormal level of skill would have been available to me is hypothetical and it would be immodest of me to answer the question in the affirmative. As I treat of the matter as hypothetical and am not required to answer, and as I note from the beaming countenance of the hon. Gentleman that he is teasing me, I take it in the spirit in which he has done so and proceed to the petition in the name of Mr John Howell.

School Funding

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

19:32

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I present a petition that has been signed by 406 residents of the village of Woodcote in my constituency and by surrounding villages that feed into the school of Langtree. The purpose of the petition is to try to remove once and for all issues over school funding. This is a similar petition to the one that I submitted in connection with Henley itself a little while ago.

The petition states that the petition of the residents of Woodcote, Oxfordshire, of friends of Langtree School and of those from surrounding villages declares that a funding review is needed in relation to Langtree school; further that this school funding review should address how funding increases will be made in relation to schools in the Henley constituency in real terms beyond the amounts already being spent on schools and how to eliminate the gap between the best and lowest funded schools in the constituency; further that there must be a review of areas of inflationary pressures and situations where schools provide additional services such as social care, or deal with criminal behaviour to examine the real costs of providing education; further that there must be an assessment into the extent and access to capital funding; further that the Basic Entitlement must form an appropriate percentage of the National Funding Formula used locally; further that the Department and Treasury must ensure that small primary schools in the constituency remain integral to their communities.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[ The petition of residents of Woodcote and friends of Langtree School,

Declares that a funding review is needed in relation to schools in the Henley constituency; further that this school funding review should address how funding increases will be made in relation to schools in the Henley constituency in real terms beyond the amounts already being spent on schools and how to eliminate the gap between the best and lowest funded schools in the constituency; further that there must be a review of areas of inflationary pressures and situations where schools provide additional services such as social care, or deal with criminal behaviour to examine the real costs of providing education; further that there must be an assessment into the extent and access to capital funding; further that the Basic Entitlement must form an appropriate percentage of the National Funding Formula used locally; further that the Department and Treasury must ensure that small primary schools in the constituency remain integral to their communities.

The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to ask the Department of Education and the Treasury to conduct a review of school funding in Henley that addresses the issues stated above, in advance of the Comprehensive Spending Review; and further requests that the findings of this review are communicated to the House of Commons.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P002483]

Unemployment and Autism

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mike Freer.)

19:35

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

I thank the National Autistic Society and the local group Autism Take 5 for their help in preparing for this debate.

Of those who have been fortunate enough to have received a diagnosis, there are 540,000 people with autism spectrum conditions. Some 433,000 are aged 18-plus, and 107,000 children are currently diagnosed with ASCs UK-wide. Research by the Centre for the Economics of Mental Health sheds light on the impact on the UK economy through lost productivity. This Government emphasise the need for people to move into paid employment and for higher rates of economic activity, but the autistic population is standing out as they are experiencing social and employment exclusion more than any other group. The cost of this is £27.5 billion spent annually supporting people with ASCs, and a 36% loss in employment in that group.

The World Health Organisation reports a substantial increase in people being diagnosed with autism spectrum conditions. Therefore, we must consider the large number of teenagers now approaching working age. This is significant because people with ASCs experience symptoms that are considered barriers to employment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this subject to the House for consideration. Every one of us in this House and those outside are concerned about it. Does the hon. Lady agree that support and understanding are the key to employment of people with autism, and that the option of free training—something different, and something proactive and positive for people with autism and their employers—should be available to private employers who wish to learn how to get the best from their staff, and ensure that their working environment is safe and secure for all workers?

[Marion Fellows]

I feel privileged that the hon. Gentleman has intervened in my Adjournment debate, and I could not agree with him more. I will come to his point later in my speech.

Following a survey commissioned by the National Autistic Society, the London School of Economics advises that only 16% of adults with ASCs are in full-time employment, despite 77% of them wanting to work. These figures have remained static since 2007 and are considerably lower than the employment figure for people belonging to other disability categories, which currently sits at 47%. Therefore, those with autism spectrum conditions are disproportionally unemployed.

We know that employment contributes to our identity and quality of life. Equally, we are only too aware that unemployment has significant individual and societal costs. As a result of these barriers, most people with ASCs who are fortunate enough to gain employment will experience mal-employment, and will most likely be placed in jobs that are a poor job fit for their skillset. This is commonly because the job does not align with individual interests, talents, specific skills or intelligence levels. It is common sense that the better the job fit, the more likely people are to succeed. By not addressing this, individuals with ASCs will experience high levels of job turnover, resulting in disjointed employment histories that limit their potential for continuous employment; we know that when applying for jobs, our work history can either facilitate or block our access to being invited for an interview.

Every adult—with or without a disability—has the right to enjoy employment, and should be able to choose their career without restriction, to work in positive conditions and to be protected against unemployment.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major concerns for many people relates to workplace assessments and their effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, whether for those with autism or other disabilities? Does she agree that the Department really should consider how it measures the effectiveness of workplace assessments—say, for those with autism—in enabling them to stay in a job for a longer period?

[Marion Fellows]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He raises a very important point.

It is recognised that jobcentre staff will encourage an individual to apply for and accept any vacancy. For someone with a fragmented employment history, this quickly becomes accepted as the only route to employment.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that we should ask the Government to follow the advice and example of the Scottish Government in creating an autism implementation team to improve outcomes, including in accessing work, for people with autism so that they are supported as they make their way in the world?

[Marion Fellows]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I do agree. In fact, there are many occasions when this Government could follow the excellent example of the Scottish Government, but in this case it could prove especially fruitful.

Not all jobs are suitable for individuals with autism spectrum conditions, as a result of their own individual barriers. These are common symptoms of ASCs. It is accepted that ASCs will result in individuals experiencing strong resistance to change and poor social communication and interpersonal skills. They will struggle in acclimatising to new routines and procedures. However, this should not prevent them from accessing employment: it means that we need to change our approach within the workplace.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on the way in which she is presenting her case. As well as the barriers of access to employment that she is speaking about, there are barriers of access for people with autism going about their daily lives in general. Does she agree that Hope for Autism, which is based in Airdrie but serves the entirety of North Lanarkshire, is an example of a specialist local organisation doing fantastic work to help young people with autism, and their families, not just in accessing work but in being able to cope with the barriers that they face?

[Marion Fellows]

I thank my hon. Friend. Yes, he is absolutely right. There are so many organisations UK-wide that support and help people with autism, but we need to really concentrate on getting people on the spectrum into employment.

We need workplaces to become accessible for those with ASCs. I would argue that we need a more holistic approach and acceptance of an individual’s personal preferences and abilities. We must recognise the barriers that some will face when attempting to gain employment. In the first instance, job application forms can be too complex and without clear instructions. Most individuals with autistic spectrum conditions will struggle with deciding whether they should declare that they have an ASC. Again, this is a result of the neurotypical stereotyping that continues to exist today. In other words, people with ASCs are perceived as being very different, and there is no real understanding of the challenges and range of autistic spectrum conditions that exist.

When someone with an ASC is fortunate enough to be invited for an interview, a variety of factors may impact negatively on their performance, as it might be called, in relation to a neurotypical candidate. It is important to recognise that they will be sensitive to sensory stimuli—bright lighting and so on—that will result in increasing their anxiety before they have even begun the interview. We use the neurotypical as a normative benchmark for interview success, but this needs to change. Interviews measure candidates demonstrating their social skills and having the confidence to maintain a flowing conversation. An interviewer will expect the interviewee to respond to questions quickly.

However, the language used in questions can be misunderstood. Not everyone interviewing applicants is experienced or trained in interviewing techniques and can all too often ask one question that contains other questions, causing confusion for an individual with an ASC. One common question in interviews is, “Tell me about yourself.” Someone with an ASC will have difficulty in determining what exactly the interviewer wishes to know: it is too open-ended a question. Questions need to be concise and designed to avoid misinterpretation. They will struggle to read between the lines or understand the tone of voice. Many interviews use questions that require hypothetical scenarios and hypothetical answers. People with ASCs are factual thinkers and will find that line of questioning challenging. We also know that someone with an ASC will have problems understanding facial expressions and recognising social cues. It is widely accepted that people with ASCs experience difficulty in adapting to new routines and procedures. They will also struggle with adopting a flexible approach in unexpected situations, so not all jobs will be appropriate environments for them. I have not given an exhaustive list.

The Government argue that disability support is in place, such as the local supported employment and intensive personalised employment support programmes, but those are generic disability employment programmes, not designed for autism spectrum conditions. We need specialised support that will prove more successful in assisting people with ASCs into employment and maintaining employment. That role should be taken up by Jobcentre Plus. With proper training, jobcentres would be able to support employers who take on those with ASCs.

Being employed offers structure and routine, which enhance an individual’s life. If employers need to change their approach to hiring staff and allow a time period for those with ASCs to settle into their roles and environment, that should be done. However, there is very little or no evidence to prove that the Government are taking steps to regulate the situation, in spite of their past commitment to do so.

What is not being recognised are the attributes that people with ASCs have and can bring to the workforce. About half of those in this population will have higher education, with some educated to PhD level, yet they remain under-represented in senior organisational roles. So many people with ASCs are extremely skilled in maths, physics, computing sciences and engineering, yet they remain discriminated against, with their talents and intelligence being cast aside—all because the Government will not put into practice the recommendations provided by various autism charities.

The Government are refusing to take the bull by the horns and activate their own strategy and the Equalities Act 2010 to its fullest extent; they would rather tiptoe around autism and claim that they recognise that changes need to be made. Where is the headway on this? People with ASCs are still being excluded and discriminated against. Given their abilities, they have exceptional characteristics as employees, such as honesty, efficiency, precision, consistency, low absenteeism, disinterest in office politics and attention to detail. However, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, the lack of appropriate training and support for employers means that they generally do not see these characteristics—only autism. More often than not, that means that people in the group are forced into entry-level jobs that will not last long, due to their intelligence levels.

We cannot continue to repeat this vicious cycle with the new generation of workforce. When someone is excluded from the workforce despite their credentials, despite their abilities, despite their intelligence, what are the implications of their being unemployed? They are depression, isolation, anxiety and low self-esteem. The system is not fit for purpose.

What are the Government planning to do to rectify the situation? They continuously categorise autism spectrum conditions as a “learning disability”. I suggest that being able to achieve a PhD, complete higher education and have expert level skills is not reflective of having such a disability. Not all people with autism spectrum conditions have learning disabilities, and we need the Government to recognise that. We need to stop regarding the autistic and neurotypical ways of thinking as polar and conflicting opposites; they are merely different, with no wrong or right side at play.

The Autism Alliance has done amazing work in providing the confident autism and neurodiversity toolkit, but it is not being used enough. The difficulties many people with autistic spectrum conditions have may mean that, when they cannot get a job, they have to apply for benefits. Most of my casework is in relation to people requesting mandatory reconsiderations or people being forced to attend tribunals. It is all too obvious that the application forms for benefits such as the personal independence payment and employment and support allowance—

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Marion Fellows]

Yes, certainly.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

In relation to PIP and reconsiderations, does my hon. Friend recognise that, as I said to the Minister yesterday, 85% of all considerations were overturned in April 2019? Rather than that type of bureaucracy, we should be investing in the frontline, as my hon. Friend is saying.

[Marion Fellows]

Yes, I completely agree.

As I have said, most of my casework is in relation to people coming to me as they cannot navigate the benefits system. They find it increasingly difficult, and many in fact just give up altogether. As a caring society, we should not allow that. Applications for PIP and ESA are designed in such a way that they eliminate the neuro-diverse mindset. They are designed by a Government who would have us believe they are using all the toolkits, training, expertise and guidance from the various charities. It is clear that if this were true, more adults would have accessed employment since 2007, and fewer adults would be struggling to navigate the discriminating benefit process in operation. As MPs, we cannot know the number of individuals who have tried to apply for these benefits and not got beyond an application. People may now be homeless, have mental health issues or worse because of how this Government are failing the autistic population of this country.

I should like the Minister to address these questions. What steps will this Government take to close the autism employment gap? Will the Government commit to ensuring all Jobcentre Plus staff have proper autism understanding training? Will the Government commit to recording autism in the labour force survey so that we can measure progress in the employment of those with autism spectrum conditions?

Finally, will the Government commit to raising awareness of the autism friendly employer award? This would help many more ASCs into employment. There are other awards that MPs could work towards, too. I am proud to be the first parliamentarian to receive the autism friendly award. It is not hard to make a difference for ASCs, but by raising awareness we, together, can perhaps raise employment levels for this under-represented group of society and harness their undoubted talents for the good of society and of the economy as a whole.

19:52

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)]

It is a pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). She made a very well-thought-through, constructive and challenging contribution, with which—apart from perhaps the odd comment about the Government’s record—I wholeheartedly agree. I am not surprised at the quality of her speech, because I and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), were just commenting on how the hon. Lady is probably the most prolific Member on parliamentary questions in our Department and keeps us very active when we arrive at the office every day.

There were four asks—I will cover all four—and it is a yes across all four. First, as a Government we are proud that there have been an additional 950,000 more disabled people in work in the last five years alone, and we hope to see a further 1 million by 2027. The hon. Lady is right that we do not currently record statistics on people with autism in the labour force survey. The National Autistic Society has done its own survey, and it has estimated that 16% of the 700,000 adults with autism are in work. We are now working with the Office for National Statistics so that we can make that part of the labour force survey. I would welcome that, as the Minister for Disabled People, and we are very much on that.

Parliament often rallies round to raise the profile of cross-Government improvements that are needed to support people with autism. The all-party parliamentary group on autism has more than 200 cross-party members, and the Westminster Commission on Autism brings together senior parliamentarians and leading members of the autism community. There are also several national and local autism-supporting organisations, which are key stakeholders that support various Departments.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for a very constructive response to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). Does he agree that it is extremely important that parliamentarians undertake the autism awareness training that the all-party parliamentary group has provided? I believe that more than 100 MPs have already done so. I was very pleased to do it. Does he also agree that MPs should undertake the Disability Confident training to ensure that they are Disability Confident employers?

[Justin Tomlinson]

The chair of the all-party parliamentary group on disability has highlighted two incredibly important asks of all Parliaments and parliamentarians, and I wholeheartedly agree that they should all have that training, and that they should all sign up to Disability Confident. Many parliamentarians have done so and many enthusiastically support both those campaigns, but it does no harm to remind people that, even with busy diaries, that is incredibly important.

The majority of the speech of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw focused on employment opportunities, so that is where I will start. In the jobcentres, we are grateful for the work of the Autism Alliance, which helped develop the disability toolkit, providing comprehensive information on autism and hidden impairments. We also now have the bite-sized autism awareness learning that jobcentres are looking at. From that, many examples of good practice have developed locally, which we are sharing across the jobcentre network. They include calm and quiet sessions for claimants.

We also have the disability passport, “About Me”, which encourages disabled claimants to disclose their disability and health conditions at an earlier stage. That improves communication, ensures reasonable adjustments in advance and allows individual challenges to be explained only once. That issue was clearly highlighted in the hon. Lady’s speech. We have done more intense training on autism and hidden impairments for 1,000 of our frontline staff to ensure that there is a high level of understanding in every jobcentre. We will continue to do that, and that was one of the hon. Lady’s asks. I would like to invite her to meet me and my team to look at that particular area so we can have confidence that we are doing everything we reasonably can in all jobcentres.

As part of our support for people who could be classed as being further away from the workplace, we have: universal credit personalised support, which could simply be signposting following the first conversation; moving on to the Work and Health programme; the personalised support package, which now includes 800 disability employment advisers and leaders; or the intensive personalised employment programme, which will be launched at the end of the year. The last is highly personalised and tailored to the individual’s needs. That is important, because every autistic person experiences autism differently and many have complex needs or other conditions, such as a learning disability or a mental health condition, so the programme has to be tailored and personalised.

One of the best levers that we have as a Government is the Access to Work programme. Again, while we celebrate the fact that 33,800 people—a record number, up 13%—benefited from Access to Work last year, as with the labour force statistics, we cannot record autism. However, once that comes in to the labour force statistics, we will also have it within Access to Work. I know that it is not an exact comparison, but last year there was an increase of 22% in claimants with a learning disability where there was a crossover. There was also a 28% increase in young claimants who benefit from the Access to Work scheme. That is important because Access to Work has only recently broadened out from simply supporting people with a physical disability or sensory impairments, and we have now stepped up significantly support for mental health, learning disability and autism.

However, it is a journey and we have a real commitment to go much further. We are working with organisations such as the Autism Alliance and Exceptional Individuals to ensure that our staff have specialist knowledge, so that when they talk to employers and the potential or existing employee about how we can provide support, we have the best knowledge of the available technology and the way in which support workers can help, particularly in the interview process. Probably the most powerful part of the hon. Lady’s speech was about interviews and adapting the interview process. I have employed disabled people. I understand that interviews are a strange old process, because they bear little relation to what happens next and generally everybody just claims to be very active at sport. The real question is how they will fit those roles. We talk to employers who are struggling to fill skills gaps about being a little bit smarter. Also, through the Access to Work programme, we can look at travel, which is important, particularly if people are anxious and would find public transport difficult. We will be doing far more.

We are looking to build evidence in this area. We are working with a supported business alliance—57 supported businesses across the country—to provide a greater level of additional support. In return, we can gather the evidence to see how we can break down the barriers and provide long-term sustainable opportunities with career progression.

[Neil Gray]

As had been said, I appreciate the constructive way in which the Minister is responding to the debate. Alongside the barriers that people with ASCs have to the workplace, they are also, sadly, more likely to be exploited. One of my constituents was affected by unpaid work trials in B&M Stores. In light of this debate, I wonder whether the Minister might reconsider the Government’s opposition to the 10-minute rule Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) to ban exploitative unpaid work trials, so that people with autism and Asperger’s, such as my constituent, are not exploited in such a way again.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I am conscious of time, so I will have to look into the details. It is right that we absolutely have to do more to enlighten businesses of all sizes about the opportunities. Small changes and good practice can benefit not just individuals with autism, but the organisations that take them on.

This is my second time as Minister for Disabled People and I am very proud that, in the final few weeks last time, I was able to push through the opening up of disability apprenticeships, removing the need to get a grade C in GCSE maths and English for people who would qualify under the disability apprenticeship. That is an important way that we, as a Government, are trying to remove barriers, but we must look at providing additional support within the workplace to go beyond the interview, so that people have an opportunity to demonstrate their skills.

Through our Disability Confident campaign, which now has more than 12,000 businesses of all sizes signed up, we are looking to share best practice. I think we can go further than that, not just by recruiting more organisations to the Disability Confident campaign, but by looking at organisations such as the Health and Safety Executive. To a certain extent, that will help support the point made by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray). It is very proactive in engaging with businesses on safety, so it is a given that the workplaces will have a safe environment. We are world-leading on this—other countries look to our expertise—but we need to do the same on health. That includes empowering small and medium-sized businesses in particular that do not have personnel or HR departments, so that they can have the skills and the confidence to make small, reasonable adjustments. That would be a win-win for all.

I had the pleasure on Friday, as part of Employability Day, of meeting employers and individuals who had overcome those barriers. That was transformational for those individuals who were enjoying the opportunity to contribute, and to the employers who had struggled to fill gaps and were now benefiting as an organisation.

[Jim Shannon]

I was just sitting here thinking about the best way of doing this. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) has made some suggestions. When it comes to organising training for the potential employer and the young person with autism, would the Minister consider using the influence of parents and families to enable the training process to be easier for the person who has autism as well as for the potential employer?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I agree. In all parts of accessing services and applying for jobs, having supportive individuals is a reasonable adjustment that a good employer, a good organisation and a good Government should take into account and should encourage.

In the final moments, I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw. It is fantastic to see so many Members supporting an Adjournment debate. I think that is a recognition of the quality of the speech that was delivered on a really important topic. I think there is much agreement across the House and I would be very happy to meet further to discuss what more we can do. The Government are determined to make a real difference in this area. I am absolutely thrilled to see that there is cross-party support for that. Together, we will do everything we can to unlock every individual’s talent, so that everybody can benefit from the growing economy.

Question put and agreed to.

20:04

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Ministerial Corrections

Tuesday 2 July 2019

Education

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Ministerial Corrections

Children’s Future Food Report

The following is an extract from the Backbench Business debate on the Children’s Future Food Report on 27 June 2019

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Last year, more than 1 million disadvantaged children were eligible for and claimed a free school meal, and that important provision has recently been expanded in three significant ways. First, in 2014, we introduced free meals in further education colleges. Secondly, in the same year, we also introduced universal free school meals to all infant children in state-funded schools. Thirdly, under our revised criteria for free school meals, which were introduced last April, we estimate that more children will benefit from free meals by 2022 compared with under the previous benefit system. In fact, numbers released today show that 1.3 million children are benefiting from free school meals.

[Official Report, 27 June 2019, Vol. 662, c. 889.]

Letter of correction from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education.

An error has been identified in my response to the debate on the Children’s Future Food Report.

The correct response should have been:

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Last year, more than 1 million disadvantaged children were eligible for and claimed a free school meal, and that important provision has recently been expanded in three significant ways. First, in 2014, we introduced free meals in further education colleges. Secondly, in the same year, we also introduced universal free school meals to all infant children in state-funded schools. Thirdly, under our revised criteria for free school meals, which were introduced last April, we estimate that more children will benefit from free meals by 2022 compared with under the previous benefit system. In fact, numbers released today show that 1.2 million children are benefiting from free school meals.

Petitions

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Petitions

Tuesday 2 July 2019

Nnamani family, Glasgow

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Petitions

The petition of residents of Glasgow South West

Declares that Mary Nnamani and her family who fled from Nigeria in danger of their lives have become a full and valued part of our community in Glasgow through our schools and Church Community; further that the Nnamani family have claimed asylum here and we would dearly love them to say.

The petitions, therefore, request that the House of Commons urges the Home Office to grant Mary Nnamani and her family the right to remain in this country, where they have claimed asylum.

And the petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Chris Stephens , Official Report, 5 June 2019; Vol. 661, c. 235 .]

[P002459]

Petitions in the same terms were presented by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) [P002460]; the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) [P002461]; the hon. Member for Glasgow North East Paul Sweeney) [P002462]; the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) [P002474].

Observations from The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes):

The Government have noted the concerns raised by the residents of Glasgow South West, Glasgow Central, Glasgow North, Glasgow North East and Glasgow East and their request that Mary Nnamani and her family are allowed to continue to live in the UK where she has claimed asylum.

The Government cannot comment on individual cases, because doing so would breach their obligations to treat such personal matters in confidence.

The Government have a proud record of providing protection for those who genuinely need it, in accordance with our international obligations under the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. Every asylum claim is carefully considered on its individual merits, by assessing all the evidence provided by the claimant against policy, relevant caselaw and available country information from a wide range of recognised and publicly disclosable sources. These include the UN and its agencies, governments, the media and human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The Government will grant protection where someone demonstrates that they face persecution or serious harm in their country and they are unable to seek protection from the national authorities or move to another part of their country to live safely. The Government are very clear that we do not return anyone who faces persecution or serious harm to their country or where there will be a breach of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

There is also provision in the Home Office policy on Discretionary Leave to allow people to stay in the UK on a discretionary basis, where they do not qualify for protection, but where there are other exceptional circumstances such that expecting them to return to their country would not be appropriate.

Where a decision has been made that a person does not require international protection, and there are no remaining rights of appeal or obstacles to their return, the Home Office expects failed asylum seekers to return voluntarily to their home country. Return and reintegration assistance is available through the Home Office’s Voluntary Returns Service. If they do not leave voluntarily, the Government will seek to enforce their removal.

Where an asylum claim has been refused, but an individual subsequently obtains new information in support of their claim to be at risk of persecution, or that would support a claim to be allowed to remain in the UK on the basis of their private of family life here, the Home Office will ensure that the new information is carefully considered. Enforcement action will not proceed until a decision has been made on any fresh evidence submitted.

Yamuna River

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Petitions

The petition of residents of the United Kingdom ,

Declares that the Yamuna is worshipped by millions and is considered a holy river; the residents of the United Kingdom recognise the work of the Save Yamuna campaign and request that the British Prime Minister work with the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, and the Indian Government to treat their industrial and domestic waste and not pour treated or untreated waste water into the Yamuna river and necessarily ensure that adequate natural flow of fresh water throughout the stretch, which starts from Yamunotri to Allahabad.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to assist the Indian Government and take into consideration that there is a dire need to save the Yamuna river and remove toxic waste.

And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Keith Vaz , Official Report, 4 June 2019; Vol. 661, c. 2P.]

[P002453]

Observations from theMinister of State, Department for International Development (Harriett Baldwin):

The impact of pollution from waste, industrial chemicals and plastic is having an impact on all of us, disproportionately affecting the poorest communities in the world. Declining water quality is a significant challenge faced by many developing countries and this, amongst other challenges such as floods and droughts, contributes to ill health and poverty. Like the Petitioners, the Department for International Development (DFID) champions the importance of saving our natural resources and combating toxic waste. We note with particular concern the drought currently affecting millions of people in India.

While we do not currently work on decontamination of the Yamuna river specifically, DFID has a number of programmes that focus on water pollution such as our Water Security Programme, which helps developing countries to promote sustainable and responsible water management and to bring together industries, communities and Governments to take collective action to address challenges such as pollution.

India’s Department of Science and Technology (DST), the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) have funded a joint programme on India-UK water quality to develop understanding of the sources and fate of different pollutants, and by supporting the development of management strategies and technologies to reduce pollution levels. The UK contributes £4.2 million to this programme, which is then matched in research by DST. The aim of this programme is to provide policymakers, regulators, businesses and local communities with information and solutions that will help them tackle India’s water quality issues and secure the provision of clear water, rejuvenate rivers, and restore ecosystems. This will be achieved by supporting research to improve understanding of the sources, transport, transportation, interactions and fate of pollutants, and determine the risks they pose to both people and the environment. Importantly, the joint programme will also develop new management strategies and technologies to clean-up water courses and enable better monitoring of pollution levels.

India’s Department of Biotechnology (DBT), UKRI’s Innovate UK, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) are working on a joint programme (worth £9.9 million) through the Newton Bhabha Fund on Biotechnological Solutions for tackling industrial waste and facilitating academic and industrial collaboration to help address industrial waste. This programme also aims to improve value recovery from waste by using biotechnology across large industrial sectors in India. Projects supported by the programme are exploring a number of approaches to help cut waste and pollution—for example: using bio-refining techniques to recover value from industrial, waste; transforming mixed solid waste into high-value chemical products; turning paper-mill waste into chemical wealth; cutting waste produced by sugarcane processing; and extracting value from waste generated by the sugarcane sector and associated industries.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill (First sitting)

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Dame Cheryl Gillan, †Steve McCabe

† Afolami, Bim (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)

† Charalambous, Bambos (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)

† Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con)

† Duffield, Rosie (Canterbury) (Lab)

Gaffney, Hugh (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)

Green, Kate (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)

† Heaton-Jones, Peter (North Devon) (Con)

† Hughes, Eddie (Walsall North) (Con)

† McMorrin, Anna (Cardiff North) (Lab)

† Maynard, Paul (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice)

† Onn, Melanie (Great Grimsby) (Lab)

† Prentis, Victoria (Banbury) (Con)

† Qureshi, Yasmin (Bolton South East) (Lab)

† Slaughter, Andy (Hammersmith) (Lab)

† Tracey, Craig (North Warwickshire) (Con)

† Trevelyan, Anne-Marie (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)

† Warman, Matt (Boston and Skegness) (Con)

Jo Dodd, Mike Everett, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Witnesses

Aidan Jones OBE, Chief Executive, Relate

Nigel Shepherd, Former Chair of Resolution and Member of the National Committee, Resolution

David Hodson OBE, Law Society Family Law Committee member and partner at International Family Law Group LLP, The Law Society

Professor Liz Trinder, Professor of Socio-legal Studies, University of Exeter

Mandip Ghai, Senior Legal Officer, Rights of Women

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 2 July 2019

[Steve McCabe in the Chair]

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill

09:25

[The Chair]

I just want to rattle through a few preliminaries. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Mr Speaker does not allow tea or coffee during sittings. We will consider a programme motion, a motion to consider the written evidence and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private. I hope we can deal speedily with those.

Ordered,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 2 July) meet at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 2 July;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:

Table

[The Chair]

The deadline for amendments has passed.

Resolved,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Paul Maynard.)

[The Chair]

Copies of written evidence we receive will be made available in the Committee Room.

Resolved,

That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Paul Maynard.)

09:26

The Committee deliberated in private.

Examination of Witnesses

Aidan Jones, Nigel Shepherd and David Hodson gave evidence.

09:28

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from representatives from Relate, Resolution and the Law Society. I remind hon. Members that all questions have to be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we have to stick to the agreed timings. Members should declare any relevant interests at the outset.

If our panel are ready, I ask them to introduce themselves, in order, for the record.

Nigel Shepherd: Hello. I am Nigel Shepherd, former chair and current board member of Resolution and a long-time campaigner for no-fault divorce.

David Hodson: I am David Hodson and I am here on behalf of the Law Society family law committee. I am an assistant mediator and arbitrator in a practice in central London, dealing with international cases.

Aidan Jones: Hello, good morning. I am Aidan Jones, chief executive of Relate.

[The Chair]

Thank you. I invite Committee members to ask questions, in order. We have a strict deadline and must finish by 10.15 am.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

Q Thank you very much for coming in to help us progress this Bill. What are your views of the Bill? Are there any improvements we should be making, or is it a pretty good attempt to solve this particularly difficult dilemma?

Nigel Shepherd: If I may start, I think this is an excellent Bill. The important thing is the big picture. Resolution members—6,500 family justice professionals—are dealing with divorce disputes up and down the country on a daily basis. Our ethos is to try to do so in a constructive, non-confrontational way, yet in the words of our current chair, Margaret Heathcote, who is quoted in the Ministry of Justice’s press release announcing the Bill, under the current law we are doing that job with one hand tied behind our back. Each year, about 100,000 couples are getting divorced in England and Wales, and the most recent statistics show that about 57% of those are pushed into this blame game, alleging one of the two primary fault grounds of adultery or behaviour.

The Committee will be aware that the Family Law Act 1996 would have introduced no-fault divorce, but it was never implemented. We estimate that, since then, about 1.7 million people have assigned blame in the divorce process. Many of those would have done so not necessarily because they wanted to or because it was the real reason for the divorce but because under the current system, if they cannot afford to wait at least two years for a consensual divorce, that is the only option open to them. Crucially, a large number of those would have been parents. Quite frankly, we have waited too long for this reform, having had it once and not got it over the line. In the meantime, we are dealing with that conflict on a daily basis. It is damaging to families, and particularly damaging to children. It is the time that the law caught up with the public attitude, which is that it is time for change and to end this blame game.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

Q You said that the reasons they state do not represent a fair reflection of the actual reasons. On what is that based? I thought I had read a report that said that 91% of petitioners said that it was very close or fairly close.

Nigel Shepherd: A national opinion survey, “Finding Fault?” You will hear evidence in the next session from Professor Liz Trinder, who conducted empirical research called “Finding Fault?” and the opinion survey for that found that only 29% of respondents to a fault divorce said that the fact used matched very closely the reason for the separation, and that 43% of those identified by their spouse as being at fault disagreed with the reasons cited in the divorce petition.

We call it a blame game, because at the moment if someone comes to see me as a practising family lawyer and says, “We both agree that the marriage has broken down. It is very sad, but we want to do this in the right way for our children and move forward. Can we get a divorce?” I say, “Not unless you want to wait two years.” They are aghast. They say, “That’s crazy. What do we do?” and I say, “Well, one of you is going to have to blame the other. Has there been adultery?” They say, “No,” so I say, “In that case, it is a behaviour petition.” They ask, “What do I have to say?” And that does not really matter. It has to be true—as a lawyer, I cannot put them through something that is untrue—but you can practically go on to the internet and cut and paste things such as, “I don’t like the way they control the remote control.”

[The Chair]

Q I am conscious of time. I wonder whether either of our other two witnesses has anything to add on the first question.

David Hodson: May I respond briefly to that last point? I would go even further than Nigel. Lawyers specifically go out of their way to make sure that the real heart of the reason why the relationship may have broken down is not in the allegations of unreasonable behaviour, to remove any cause for greater animosity and concern. As practising lawyers we go out of our way to pull back from the distress that these allegations would cause. So although, as Nigel says, it will always be true, we do not put down the real problems at the heart of the relationship, to avoid that.

If I can come to the Law Society’s position, we have throughout supported no-fault divorce and we have been keenly supportive of Resolution in all the steps it has taken. Nigel and I were actively involved in 1996 when that legislation went through. We are keen to support no-fault divorce and actively support the principle of this legislation. We actively support a period of notice as the way of dealing with it, rather than a period of separation, which can have artificial and discriminatory elements.

We have a number of concerns, however, about the structure of the Bill, including the way it is set out, and there are a number of flaws in the Bill. We want the legislation to go through and we want no-fault divorce, but we believe that the Bill should be amended in certain respects before it completes its passage through Parliament.

Aidan Jones: At Relate we believe that the outdated fault-based divorce system leads to animosity and causes conflict between parents, which we believe harms children. We think that it is better to have a system that supports co-parenting in future. We recently did a survey in which 64% of divorcees who responded said that placing blame for the divorce made the process worse for them. There are some quite stark quotes about how difficult that process was. For example: “things had been civil up until that point, very straightforward. Then, after divorce papers, it turned into a war and no one wants to accept blame or responsibility.” We strongly support the changes to the law, as set out.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Q Good morning, it is good to have you with us today. I wondered if you could expand on the changes that were proposed in the Family Law Act 1996, and explain why they have not come forward. What do you think has changed between 1996 and now that means that this legislation should be brought forward? I do not know who wants to answer first.

Nigel Shepherd: I am happy to do so. I think the 1996 Act was extremely complicated. This Bill has the beauty of simplicity, and for the right reason: it concentrates on the principal problem of the fault-based system. The 1996 Act introduced various things such as information meetings and different periods for different situations where there were children or a dispute about the divorce. I think it got wrapped up with those complications, so it was never implemented. It has taken a long time to get where we are today.

I also think that public attitudes have changed considerably. I think people are looking for autonomy and to say, “We are adults, and if one of us believes that the marriage is over, we should have a dignified, constructive way of ending it that focuses on the future, not the past.”

David Hodson: It went into Parliament a fairly good piece of legislation; the perception of many lawyers is that it came out vastly more complicated. It went in with a nine-month period of notice—the structure was the same—but it came out, as Nigel said, with a two or three-stage process. Eighteen months was almost the minimum; if there were children, that went up to 21 months. There was even a provision that it could be further.

The general perception was that it made it far more difficult; although there were media headlines about an easier divorce, everyone knew that it would make it far more difficult as it made it longer. To a certain extent, a longer divorce does not help the public, so there was not too much unhappiness that that particular model as it came out of Parliament did not go through. Why it never went through is a political matter, which perhaps is another matter. The length of the period was the primary problem with the legislation as it came out of Parliament—it was far too long.

[Melanie Onn]

Q Nigel, earlier in your evidence you mentioned that people cannot afford to wait two years. Can you explain that a little more? Afford it in what sense—financially or emotionally?

Nigel Shepherd: The position at the moment is that under the legislation for financial remedy, relief, maintenance or transfer of property, the court can make an order only when we have reached what is now the decree nisi stage, which will be the conditional order stage under the proposals. If you need to move on financially, you need to access the orders; even by agreement, the court cannot do that until there is a conditional order.

A two-year wait is a lifetime. Once people have reached the sad conclusion that their marriage is over, they are told that they can get on with some things but will have to come back in two years’ time and relive that, so when faced with the option of, “All you need to do is put down some mild allegations of behaviour, and we can get on with it,” that it the choice they make. That is why those percentages of fault-based grounds are so high. Even where people agree that it is a game they are playing to get through, it still increases conflict; you can still derail those negotiations and have an impact on the family.

[Melanie Onn]

Q I have one final question. David, you mentioned flaws in the legislation, and you have also talked about the need for some amendments. Is there a danger, as we go through this process, that we end up in the same situation as in 1996, where there are multiple amendments and we make what is currently quite a simple piece of legislation far more complex than it needs to be?

David Hodson: From the legal profession, we desperately hope not. We want a simple process. Despite what may be thought, family lawyers try to settle all our cases. We try to deal with the crucial elements—issues regarding children and finance—but divorce is not a matter on which lawyers would want to spend any amount of time. We want it to go through smoothly.

Will it change the parliamentary process? We hope not. I agree with Nigel: we think the spirit of the age has changed since 1996. Our perception is of a far greater willingness to accept no-fault divorce from those categories that might not previously have been supportive. The changes that certainly the Law Society would like are not substantial; they do not change the structure or concept of a period over notice. They just try to protect the interest, particularly of the so-called respondents—the sole petition where the person may not have fully been expecting a petition to come through.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

Q Could you focus on children for a moment? What proportion of divorces involve children? How will the Bill promote their welfare?

Nigel Shepherd: I do not have the figures to hand, but I can certainly come back to you on that. Self-evidently, a very considerable number involve children under the age of 16. I am sure that is the case. Professor Liz Trinder may have the specific figures to hand. Clearly, children are at the heart of this process. As David said, as Resolution members and family lawyers doing the job properly we are trying all the time to help people focus on what really matters. The children are absolutely the first consideration in that. We know from the research that conflict is damaging to children. It is not necessarily divorce itself; it is the way you divorce. This Bill will help at the beginning to have a more constructive approach to that and help people focus on what matters.

David Hodson: It is curious. The reasons for a divorce do not reflect on children issues and they will not be dealt with in financial issues, and we do not deal with them. But it is the psychodynamic of the couple that every so often a client will say to one, three or four months under way, “I still resent the fact that I am the respondent. You do know that this is equally to blame,” and we say, “Yes, we do, but it won’t have any bearing on children or financing”. However many times we say it to our clients, there is a residual feeling in their mind: “How am I the respondent? I shouldn’t be. I may be partly to blame, but I’m not wholly to blame”. It is the black-and-white element that we have one petitioner and one respondent.

One of the things the legislation has to bring through is that we have to review how we call people in this process. It is the softer elements around the legislation that are as important as the harder elements. For example, let us not get rid of the idea of an applicant and a respondent; let us have “in the marriage of”, and let us name the parties. Even if one person applies for a divorce and the other one responds to it, let us call it a divorce between two people, without having a litigious element in the heading. I think Relate and others would also certainly want to support those softer elements, which are crucial to this process as Parliament and society look at amending this law.

Aidan Jones: From my perspective, the best I can do is quote one of our senior practice consultants, who says:

“The proposed legislation sends out a much healthier message for children. I have known plenty of couples over the years who have agreed together to separate, but one had to cite unreasonable behaviour and the other had to go along with it. This can cause issues. Blame is toxic and never helpful. A great deal of the work we do in the counselling room is around helping people to understand this and to take responsibility for their own actions. It is possible to have a healthy divorce. This legislation will make that easier to achieve”.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

Q The new procedure will introduce a minimum clause between application and the conditional order. Can I begin by asking Aidan how the minimum pause between application and condition order will improve the wellbeing of couples and children in practice?

Aidan Jones: Between application and decree nisi?

[Anna McMorrin]

Yes.

Aidan Jones: It gives the potential for those couples to consider their position and seek help and support through counselling, for example, that we can provide. It allows them to consider carefully before proceeding. We support that period of consideration. The 20-week period up to decree nisi is important. We think that is the right place to put it. Our view is that, when it gets to decree nisi, the big decision is almost made in a lot of cases. The potential for people to have a longer period of consideration is very important.

David Hodson: This is one of the primary concerns the Law Society has about this structure. We are very anxious. The respondent to a sole petition may be unaware of how seriously the other spouse feels about the marriage—they may not be expecting a divorce. Then, not only does she/he receive a divorce petition, as we still call it, but they also receive an application for financial claims. From day one, we have not only the divorce time period but the financial claims running.

The Law Society’s strong recommendation is that we carve out, within the 26 weeks, a three-month period where there are no financial proceedings. Then the respondent spouse is not facing the claims to make full disclosure—once that happens, the thinking moves on to “Oh, we have now got to resolve matters post-divorce.” We are very keen for there to be a period of reflection and consideration, which is what we had in the 1996 legislation in another form, to give an opportunity to pause, reflect, talk, maybe to have counselling, maybe in some cases to have reconciliation and maybe for one party to get up to speed with the other party. It is the constant experience of divorce lawyers that one party may have come to terms with the ending of a marriage before the other, so we are dealing with a very different emotional timetable.

This three months will not be of any prejudice. If urgent applications have to be made for interim provision, that is fine. It will not affect children or domestic violence, which are always separate proceedings. It just is a litigation-free zone for three months. We are not in any way saying there should be an extra three-month period—it is part of the 26-week period. After that, it is fine if couples want to say “Hey, let’s just get on with it by consent”, but for those who say they would like a pause, this legislation needs to find somewhere to say: “We want to give an opportunity for consideration, maybe of reconciliation, maybe a pause in the proceedings.” At the moment it does not. As Aidan said, and as the Government consultation paper said, it would be between the conditional order and the final order. That is the wrong end of the process. Have it at the beginning—a three-month period.

[Anna McMorrin]

Q From your perspective, would that allow enough time for everything to be reconciled within that timeframe?

David Hodson: Is it possible to deal with financial matters in litigation in six months? No. In the central family court, where I sit part-time, you would normally expect nine months from what we call a form A, when the application is started off, until the financial dispute resolution hearing where most cases settle—the final hearing. That usually takes nine months, so it could not be done in the six-month time period anyway. We have other concerns about pensions and policies. It could not be done in three months or six months, so that argues for a nine-month period. We are not arguing for it. We are agnostic about six months.

[Anna McMorrin]

Q Nigel and Aidan, do you agree?

Nigel Shepherd: I think the Bill has it right at the moment, and I think it is very important to recognise that that kind of amendment runs the risk of leading us down the road of complicating things. We have a unique opportunity at the moment to get this over the line on the key principle of no-fault divorce. I think the purpose of the Bill is that simplicity. We can deal with issues of financial application separately if we need to. We can certainly discuss that. What I would not want to do is risk losing this opportunity for the sake of amendments that make it more complicated than it is. That would be our key point.

Aidan Jones: I agree with that. The core and most significant issue is the fault-based system. I think we should seek to resolve that, and anything that puts that at risk, for me, is something we should consider very seriously, so I would support that we keep it simple and deal with the major and most significant issue. For me, the most important part of that is the impact on children and their life chances, and the Bill will go a long way to resolve that, or to make that a better situation.

[Eddie Hughes]

Q Does this Bill make divorce easier?

David Hodson: No, in a word. I think it makes it kinder.

[Eddie Hughes]

Q Sorry, Aidan used the word “easier” during his evidence, so I thought that was kind of implied. Nigel, if you could explain.

Nigel Shepherd: Yes. I do not think it makes it easier in the sense that I think a couple who have been married deciding to get divorced—or one of them being unhappy—is very rarely easy, for us as practitioners. What the process currently does is it makes it harder than it needs to be. It increases conflict.

[Eddie Hughes]

Q So, relatively—I am sorry about the semantics, but I think they are important—if the current process makes it harder, surely, by implication, this makes it easier? You cannot argue both of those points. You clever legal people are always at this.

Nigel Shepherd: It is a matter of terminology. This no-fault process makes it kinder and more constructive. I do not think you will ever get rid of the—

[Eddie Hughes]

Q Does it make it less hard? That would be helpful.

Nigel Shepherd: It makes it less conflicted, and if by hard you mean conflicted and unconstructive, yes, this Bill makes it less of those.

[Eddie Hughes]

Q I started with the word “easier”—you were trying to avoid the opposite of it.

[The Chair]

Maybe we just have to hear about it as evidence.

[Eddie Hughes]

Sorry. Thank you, Chair.

Aidan Jones: As the non-legal person, I think I used the word “healthier”.

[Eddie Hughes]

You definitely used the word “easier”—and the transcript, I am sure, will tell us that.

Aidan Jones: The quotation from our senior practitioner used the word healthier—it is possible to have a healthier divorce. I think that is a better way to describe it.

[Eddie Hughes]

Q Sorry; you were referring to one element of it, saying, “This is easier.”

David Hodson: It makes it a far more respectful process. Our existing law is harder, because we make our clients go through the process of inventing allegations of unreasonable behaviour or making allegations of adultery when that may not have been anything to do with why the marriage broke up.

[Eddie Hughes]

Q Or, occasionally, identifying them if they actually do exist.

David Hodson: We do not now have to. If I may say this, with respect, we changed the law a few years ago so that you no longer name a co-respondent. That is just part of what we try to do to reduce the tension. Why do we have to name third parties who may or may not have anything to do with the reason a marriage broke up?

[Eddie Hughes]

Q Do we have any idea in percentage terms of how many people start proceedings but do not conclude them?

David Hodson: Can I deal with that? That is a real concern for the Law Society. There is some doubt about the statistics. It is a particular concern with online divorce. My firm deals with the online divorce process, and there is a real worry that the number of divorces that do not proceed has increased with the online divorce process. There were 13 on Christmas day. We have asked the Ministry of Justice for figures under the new process, which came into effect in April last year, where the public could issue their own divorces. Solicitors came on board in August.

How many members of the public issued their own divorce through the online process? We have asked the Ministry of Justice, which has given us some figures. My firm has done a freedom of information request and we hope to get a reply in about two weeks. I think it will show that there is a higher number in the online process than there was in the “hard” process, when we actually put it in the post, as it were, and actually had to file it.

That brings us on to a concern about the effect. We have to allow a process. If people are going to say that, it is another reason for the three-month cooling-off period. As I say, we have asked the Ministry of Justice, and if the Ministry of Justice can give those figures to all of us around this combined table earlier, it would be very helpful. The suspicion must be that the figure for litigants-in-person through online who do not proceed is higher.

[Eddie Hughes]

Q One final question from me: is there something we could do that would be more significant in removing the pressure or burden on children, other than removing the fault element?

Nigel Shepherd: I do not think so. This Bill does what it says on the tin in that respect. It is really important to get this and to focus on that big picture.

[Eddie Hughes]

Q That is the most significant thing in removing the impact on children?

Nigel Shepherd: It is one element that we can achieve through this Bill. Of course, there are things that we need to continue to work on.

[Eddie Hughes]

Q Hang on a second. The last time we tried to change this was in 1996, and it did not change. This feels like a fairly unique opportunity in terms of timescale, so is there something else we could be doing that would be more significant?

Nigel Shepherd: I think we need to continue to work on how we improve our systems, but I do not think this Bill is the vehicle for dealing with the fault aspect, which we know is damaging to children, and we can achieve that.

Aidan Jones: There are things we can do—not in a legal sense, but in a sense of, “How do we support people in healthy relationships?”—but I would not include them within the Bill. I would want Government Departments and the Government to look more widely at how we can support people through their relationships and in bringing up children. That is really important and you make a good point.

David Hodson: Children have been removed from the divorce process. They are not even named in the divorce petition. A few years ago, the requirement to set out their names and dates of birth was completely removed. One can get a divorce petition through now and have no idea whether they have one child, no children, many children, who they are living with and so on. That was a previous Ministry of Justice decision. The statutory instrument simply removed all reference to any children in any divorce papers. A few years ago, the judge had to express themselves satisfied with the arrangements for the children. That has also gone, so in the legal sense, the children have been completely removed, but they are still the children of a couple who are having to go through a no-fault divorce, and we do not want the children or their parents to have to go through that.

[The Chair]

I think we had better move on.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

Q I have a technical question about the Bill. Clause 6 gives the Lord Chancellor wide-ranging powers to amend primary legislation. Are you comfortable about those powers? The clause is titled “Minor and consequential amendments” but that is a bit of a misnomer.

David Hodson: I think there is an agreeable difference between the Law Society and Resolution here. We would like to see any material changes to the expectation of the structure set out in primary rather than secondary legislation. We are keen for the public, at the end of this process, as the measure goes through Parliament, in either a few weeks—some would think that is too rushed—or in a few months, when there is an opportunity for public debate, to understand what the divorce process is all about. The 1996 measure did at least allow the public to have a discussion about what it was like. We are not having that discussion at the moment, partly because this is going through fairly quickly and partly because it has not got into the public arena, so we would be very keen to say this: if the Ministry of Justice has any concerns about bringing any of these aspects forward, it should put them in the primary legislation.

There is another reason. At the moment, clause 1 does not read well. I mean no undue criticism of the drafter, but nobody could pick it up and read it. I tried to do that on Thursday at lunchtime and I really struggled. It is not a progressive process, it does not use straightforward language, and you cannot see it. Nigel and I have had a happy disagreement, but when is the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage? In terms of what we need to have within this structure, I agree with Nigel that we do not want to clog it up, but there are some crucial elements that we think should be brought into this legislation, as opposed to having—dare I say?—Henry VIII-type powers. Henry VIII is probably not the right person to bring up in the context of divorce, and Henry VIII-type powers probably should not be in, of all things, this divorce legislation.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Q To pick up on something that you said, Mr Hodson, the reality is that the language of applicant and respondent is important because it gives control to the person—I am thinking particularly of women who are trying to leave an abusive relationship. If it is changed, how do they maintain control of the next stage of the process, which clearly this Bill does not cover, in terms of the finances and protecting their children and ensuring that they are in control of the timetable and, indeed, the outcomes on that side of things?

David Hodson: It is totally unaffected by that particular provision. Domestic violence and children proceedings are under another piece of statute. They would often be dealt with by a different judge on another occasion. None of the financial elements would actually overflow into those two, so there is absolutely no prejudice whatever.

In terms of the timetable for the three months, a person might want to bring an application for interim financial provision. One reason why we have so many fault-based divorces in this country is that, in some instances, people need financial help and they can get it under our law only against what we used to call ancillary relief. Some countries have free-standing provision—I think Sir James Munby is coming, and it would be interesting to ask him. I think he supports free-standing financial provision—so you do not need a divorce. Many people apply for a divorce as a route to applying for financial provision. They would not be prejudiced in any way by having this litigation-free zone. They could apply straight away, which must be right.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Q But in terms of that direction and that messaging, if you are no longer the applicant, although you are the one applying, that changes the whole sense of who is fighting for this, because the financial arrangement side is still often a fight.

David Hodson: It does not—forgive me. You would often have a petitioner for a divorce who may actually be the respondent to the financial claims. It gets awfully confusing, but you would often have the petitioner, who actually seeks the divorce under our present law, and it may be the respondent—maybe the wife—who then makes the application in form A, because she needs the financial provision, and she would be called the applicant in the financial claims. Because they are financial proceedings, they are separate to the divorce and they have a separate court hearing. She is the applicant and she would actually be the one who would control the entire timetable. She would be the one who made the opening speeches if they were at a hearing. She is the one who would actually be the applicant. The divorce is literally divorced from the financial process apart from two or three dates, and completely divorced from domestic violence and children proceedings—and rightly so.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Q To be clear, the Law Society would like us not to take out clause 6. I have yet to see what the views of the others are. Is that because you are against Henry VIII clauses generally, or do you think one is particularly inappropriate in this Bill? This is being put forward as an uncontentious Bill, but that is rather undermined by the desire to get it through simply and quickly without amendment. There is an attempt to have your cake and eat it by leaving in the ability to amend it completely in future.

David Hodson: Clause 6 must stay in; there has to be the power for Government—for the Ministry of Justice—to bring in statutory instruments. We are saying that if the Ministry of Justice has in mind any changes, and if there are certain elements within the structure of the process of divorce that are in question, let us debate and understand them now, have a discussion, and bring them in there. That is certainly not to suggest that there should be a much longer process and much longer clause 1. If some of these items—not a lot; just a few of them—that we have put in the Law Society briefing paper are going to be considered, they should be brought forward and discussed now.

Nigel Shepherd: Resolution is relaxed about the current structure of the Bill. We feel that we can proceed with this as this is, and we can deal with some of these details in secondary legislation. Again—I am banging the same drum—our primary focus is on removing fault from this process, and that is what we want to get over the line.

[Andy Slaughter]

Q You want to get that through quickly before we mangle it. Then you are happy to trust Government to do whatever they like in the future in this area of law. Is that your view?

Nigel Shepherd: We cannot ignore the current political uncertainty and the priorities elsewhere. We are delighted that time has been found for this, and we do not want to lose it.

[Andy Slaughter]

Q It is just slightly suspicious. The same thing happened with the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. There was a desperate rush to get it through without bolting anything on. Then we had to have a series of short Acts, some of them private Member’s Bills, dealing with issues of relationships. There were lots of other things we could have dealt with in the Act, such as cohabitation and humanist marriage, and we dealt with equal civil partnerships in other ways. You just want to get this through and done.

Nigel Shepherd: Yes, exactly. Are there other things that we would like to do? Yes. We would like to get legal aid back, at least for early advice, to help couples and steer them towards mediation and in the right direction. Yes, we would like to reform the law for cohabitants, to give protection to the vulnerable. It is just that this is not the Bill to do that. When I say that we are relaxed at Resolution about the secondary legislation point, it is not that we think that the primary legislation is flawed, but are just ignoring that to get it through. We think it is fine, but there are details that clearly can be dealt with in secondary legislation, and we are comfortable with that.

David Hodson: Would it be helpful if I explained one of the primary concerns of the Law Society? It relates to the respondent—forgive me for using that language; the person receiving a sole petition. When does the 26-week period run? At the moment, under this legislation, it runs when the petitioner—again, forgive me for using the old-fashioned language—sends the petition to the court. When it is served, it is served through a period of notice, and there are service provisions. The legislation intends for the 26 weeks to run from that date, but the respondent may get it weeks—sometimes many weeks—later, because there are delays at the court; I do not make any further points on that, but it may take weeks, sometimes longer, for it to be issued. If somebody is abroad, the period of service may be longer. There may be a need to find the person.

In our opinion, we have fairly arbitrary, unfair, discriminatory provisions for the respondent spouse, who, we must remember, may not know this is coming. There may not have been a letter before action. They may be surprised to know how seriously the other spouse was thinking of ending the marriage—“Oh, I didn’t realise it was such a bad state that they would issue a divorce petition.” Perhaps they are not living together and the person has to be found.

It is wrong and, we believe, quite unfair for some spouses to have 24 or 20 weeks, and others to have 15 weeks, if it takes longer to serve. One of the fundamental elements of what the Law Society wants is to make it clear that the 26 weeks—if that is what Parliament deems is the right and appropriate period—run not only for the petitioner who issues the petition, but for all respondents, from the date they receive it.

The Ministry of Justice consultation period ums and ahs—my words, not theirs—as to whether the period should run from the date of the start of proceedings or the date of service, and in the end has eventually come down on the date of the start of proceedings, but they admit there is good reason for it to be from the date of service. It has to be from the date of service; otherwise, it is grossly unfair, and we are creating a law where some respondents have 24 or 23 weeks. That cannot possibly be right. If Parliament decrees that we should have a divorce after 26 weeks’ notice, that should not be the notice given by one spouse; it should be the notice received by the other. When we talk about whether to have clause 6, that is one of the fundamental elements that we say should be debated and discussed in this forum, and more publicly, to see how we feel about respondents having far less than 26 weeks.

[The Chair]

I am conscious of the time, and I want to bring the Minister in shortly. Does anyone else have a simple, straightforward question they have not had a chance to put yet? I guess it is over to you, Minister.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Paul Maynard)]

Q For the benefit of the wider Committee, could you set out what, when people submit their evidence of fault, the court does with that piece of information? How is it handled by the court? What weight do they place on it?

Nigel Shepherd: The short answer is that the average time that court officials—this is now mostly done by legal advisers in regional divorce centres—have to scrutinise the evidence is four minutes per case, broadly. Although current legislation says that the court has a duty to investigate the situation as far as is reasonably practicable, the reality is that our process does not allow that to happen at all. If a petition goes in on behaviour, and it is not defended, the legal advisers looking at it are simply checking to make sure that the jurisdictional grounds are correct, and that there is the necessary legal connection between the behaviour and the breakdown—in other words, that the boxes are correctly ticked.

There is no investigation and, what is worse, if the respondent to that petition writes five pages on why it is all untrue, if it is not formally defended with an answer and a fee paid of £200, it is ignored. That is the worst of all worlds, because respondents, particularly those without the benefit of legal advice, think that they are saying that they disagree with something about the petition, but that nobody is listening. That makes it even worse. There is no realistic scrutiny at all in the system. It is impractical to have that scrutiny, because who knows really what goes on behind the closed doors of a marriage? That is why this change is fundamentally so important; it means that there is no pretence anymore. It is intellectually dishonest at the moment; that is what Sir James Munby said in the Court of Appeal in the case of Owens. We would be getting rid of that dishonesty and acrimony at the start of the process.

David Hodson: I can add to that as a part-time judge at the central London family court. Until two or three years ago, when we had divorce centres, part-time judges had to do four or five of these special procedures every time we sat. It took a matter of moments. We would give careful consideration to the document that had been drawn up by the legal adviser as to whether there were any procedural errors. We would look at the unreasonable behaviour allegations, but I find it difficult to remember in recent years—we have softened as the years have gone by—anything having been sent back. Sometimes it is so minuscule, but if it is undefended, it will go through.

The 1996 legislation had a knock-on effect. If Parliament decided in 1996 that no-fault divorce was appropriate, though Parliament subsequently did not bring it into force, should judges be turning around and saying no? Owens was a distinctive case. It was a defended case, whereas if it is undefended, as Nigel said, it will go through. That makes it a crying pity that people have got to go through that process in the first place.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Q Good morning. You gave evidence a little while ago about the fact that in order to respond to a fault being mentioned in a divorce, a person has to memorise reams and reams of letters and make a very detailed, comprehensive response to the allegation, but unless they pay the money, they are not even going to be considered. One of the problems with a fault having to be alleged is that often, the respondent or the applicant will then have to spend quite a lot of money to get the process through, so it is almost a double whammy: they have to pay money to blame each other and get a divorce.

David Hodson: One of the Law Society’s concerns is the court fee. I appreciate that this is not in primary legislation, but may we express our concern? At the moment, it is £550.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

That is a lot.

David Hodson: For that, you get a few minutes—I will not say moments—of judicial time, and there is perhaps some scrutiny of the procedure. We hope to go to a no-fault divorce process, mostly online, with almost no or no judicial involvement, because there will not have to be any.

The £550 is very unfair on the poor—for those on welfare benefits, there is an allowance, but it is very unfair on those above that. The great worry has to be that we have a lot of limping marriages in our society between people who just cannot afford that. There are no financial claims—there is no money to make any financial claims—but they just cannot afford to bring the divorce forward.

The Law Society—Resolution would probably agree—would like to make a plea: can the Ministry of Justice review the fees? Again, that is for a secondary instrument. We have some of the highest in the world, probably second or third highest, and they are much too high. Particularly with the new process that will be going through, there is not that cost to society or to the Ministry of Justice of running it, so can we make the plea to reduce the fee of £550, so we do not have marriages out there that came to an end a long time ago?

[The Chair]

Minister, this will have to be your last question.

[Paul Maynard]

Q Do not worry, Chair; it is. To follow up on my previous question, what assessment have you made of the introduction of a joint application for a divorce? How might that change the dynamics of the process?

Nigel Shepherd: We are all in favour. It is absolutely right, and people ask for it all the time. People come in and say, “We both agree. Can we make this a joint decision? It is really important because we want to say to our children that this was a joint decision that we made as adults, rather than having Kramer v. Kramer—an applicant and petitioner against, with one person being blamed and the other not.” We are absolutely in support; it is a crucial part of the Bill.

Aidan Jones: We absolutely support that as well. We believe that is the right message. When the sadness of a divorce is approaching, it is the right message for the children to see that two adults can still co-parent and get on with each other. In the interests of the children, it is the best way forward.

David Hodson: We tried it under the present process in a number of cases where we had agreed particulars of unreasonable behaviour and cross-petitions. In other words, it went through on the petition of both the petitioner and respondent. Then we got the decree absolute, and we still had the original petitioner described as the petitioner, though it had gone through on the petition of the respondent as well, because there was a joint petition with jointly admitted unreasonable behaviour on both sides. That was so unfair. It is the unfairness of that decree absolute. If only we could have, “This is the marriage of x and y, and they have jointly asked for this.”

I think—we can discuss this—there will be a number of instances where there is a sole petitioner and a joint application for the decree absolute. Again, that embraces what we want to see—that by the end of the period before the application for the decree absolute, they have both come to terms with it. They may not have been okay with it at the beginning, but if at the end, they have come to terms with it, how much better that would be for the children, the future parenting and all those other issues. That is why we are desperately keen to see not only a change to our laws, but a change in the terminology—the way the forms are set out—because that signals so much more for the couple.

[The Chair]

I thank the panel for the evidence. We will move on to the next panel.

Examination of Witnesses

Professor Liz Trinder and Mandip Ghai gave evidence.

10:15

[The Chair]

Good morning. May I ask the panel to introduce themselves for the record, please?

Professor Trinder: I am Professor Liz Trinder from the University of Exeter.

Mandip Ghai: I am Mandip Ghai, from the charity Rights of Women.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Q Does this Bill improve things for those who have been living in an environment of domestic abuse?

Professor Trinder: Hugely, I would say. At the moment, probably about 20,000 petitioners are alleging domestic abuse in behaviour petitions. That is a very substantial number. I led the first major study of divorce law, funded by the Nuffield Foundation. One of the things we did was to talk to people who have been going through the process. Certainly, where there has been a background of domestic abuse, people had a strong sense of not wanting to inflame the situation or put themselves more at risk by alleging particulars of behaviour. About 20,000 petitions annually involve allegations of domestic abuse and not to have to put those allegations forward would put those petitioners, particularly women, in a much safer position.

Mandip Ghai: We would agree with that. As part of my role at Rights of Women, I regularly advise survivors on our telephone advice lines. They have a real concern about issuing a divorce petition at all, and about the perpetrator’s reaction, but they have particular concerns if they are having to cite domestic abuse on the petition. The Bill will also, we hope, prevent perpetrators using the threat that they will defend petitions to try and control her or have the upper hand in negotiations about finances and children.

We also find, often, that if the perpetrator issues a divorce petition first, she has to agree to a divorce based on her unreasonable behaviour, when in fact the reason why the marriage broke down was his abuse towards her. We support the Bill.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Q Do you think we will see an increase in applications in this cohort of families, if the process is easier?

Professor Trinder: I dispute the concept that it would be easier. I echo Nigel Shepherd’s point that it would be kinder. There is absolutely no reason why there would be a significant increase. In effect, the Bill just changes the way irretrievable breakdown is evidenced, by removing the need to present allegations that may or may not be true. What we may see—it happened in Scotland and other jurisdictions—is that there will be a temporary increase or spike in the number of divorces that are being brought forward. The law would not cause an increase in relationship breakdown; what it would do is enable people who are waiting for two years, sometimes five years, who are in a queue already because their marriage has broken down, to move on with their lives, sort out permanent agreements for their children and resolve money issues without having that long wait.

Mandip Ghai: For survivors who are thinking about leaving an abusive relationship, the point of separation is often the most dangerous time for them. There are lots of things they are thinking about, not just his reaction to the divorce. The Bill would just be one thing that would hopefully help her leave the abusive situation.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

Q To expand that, parties will still have to wait a year before applying. In your opinions, is there a danger that that will exacerbate any existing abuse?

Professor Trinder: That is a difficult issue, about which we have thought a lot. In general, the Bill very helpfully places responsibility for determining whether a marriage has broken down on the parties. In almost all instances, it is entirely up to the parties to determine whether the relationship has broken down and make that declaration. My only reservation with the one-year marriage bar is that it possibly has a symbolic importance to Members here. If the threat of removing the bar were to jeopardise the progress of the Bill, then I would not support it. Part of the reason for my making that statement is that there is not much evidence for needing to remove the bar.

In our study, we looked at a nationally representative sample of 300 undefended cases. Only four of those were brought within year two—months 12 to 24. Only one was brought in the 13^th month, as soon as it was legally possible to bring those proceedings. Numerically, the size of the population is small. In those four cases we also looked at what the case was about: why the marriage had come to such a precipitate end, whether it was domestic abuse, and whether it was women trying to flee an abusive relationship. None of those cases involved domestic abuse. That is not to say that there would not be domestic abuse survivors wanting to leave a marriage soon, but the numbers are very small and divorce in itself is not a protective measure.

There is the potential for nullity in the case of a forced marriage. Non-molestation occupation orders would be a solution. In any case, women would be in a better position in that, although they would have to wait 18 months, they would not have to disclose particulars of behaviour.

Mandip Ghai: We would obviously want survivors to be able to end an abusive marriage as soon as possible. We would agree with the one-year bar if concerns about it were going to derail the Bill: looking specifically at the impact on survivors, there is not enough evidence. I would also want some evidence on the impact it would have on migrant women and migrant survivors. I do not have enough information on that at the moment. There is also the issue of the potential impact on immigration status if someone’s stay is dependent on their relationship with the abuser. We do have concerns about the one-year bar, but we would agree on that if it was going to derail the Bill.

[Eddie Hughes]

Q Is there some evidence that changes of the type proposed by this legislation would lead to an increase in the number of divorces? I am reading a couple of cases here. Leora Friedberg found in her research that unilateral divorce laws were responsible for about 17% of the increase in divorce rates in the US during the 1970s and 1980s. Research across Europe by Libertad González and Tarja K. Viitanen found that

“reforms that “made divorce easier” were followed by significant increases in divorce rates”

and, moreover, that the effect of the move towards no-fault divorce laws seemed “permanent”. Is there research suggesting that we could see not just a spike in divorce but a continuation of increased divorce levels?

Professor Trinder: No.

[Eddie Hughes]

So those two things that I quoted are unfounded or not relevant?

Professor Trinder: There is a large number of academic studies, as you would imagine.

[Eddie Hughes]

There are two here.

Professor Trinder: There is a large number of academic studies looking at the relationship between divorce rates and divorce law in a range of jurisdictions. You can always find one or two studies that will be outliers, particularly from the United States where there are aligned researchers. The strong message from the consensus of academic opinion is that there is no relationship between the substantive divorce law and divorce rates. The paper by Libertad González that you reference clearly said that procedural changes can have an impact on divorce rates, not the substantive law. If you look at our law, we have fault. Of all divorces, 60% or so are proceeding on fault. They will all get through. Fault is not a bar to achieving a divorce at all.

[Eddie Hughes]

Q What do the public think about whether we should maintain fault? Has any research suggested that the public are happy with the idea of there being fault?

Professor Trinder: It depends on how you ask the great British public, and how it is put.

[Eddie Hughes]

Q Here it states that the Government’s own consultation found that a mere 17% of respondents agreed with proposals to replace the five facts with a notification process, and 80% were against it. Is that incorrect?

Professor Trinder: No, I think those are the accurate figures from the Ministry of Justice. The MOJ launched a consultation and the vast bulk of responses were supportive of the proposals. A small evangelical Christian organisation then e-mailed all its members, and there was a flood of responses.

[Eddie Hughes]

Q Are responses from evangelical Christians not valid?

Professor Trinder: No, they are valid.

[Eddie Hughes]

Q Why did you mention it then?

Professor Trinder: They are valid as the views of evangelical Christians, but they are not a valid representation of the British public. In opinion surveys by YouGov, a majority of the population are supportive of the specific reforms and the removal of fault entirely. In the main, evangelical Christians are not supportive of the reforms, but the public in general are, and that is much more persuasive to me.

Mandip Ghai: The problem with relying just on statistics is that that does not include various sections of society, such as survivors of domestic abuse, who probably did not respond to that consultation. They probably did not know about it, or may not have felt confident enough to respond to the consultation.

[Eddie Hughes]

Q Why would you make that assumption? Why would they not know about the consultation and why would they not respond? On what basis do you make that case?

Mandip Ghai: When we spoke to people on our advice line, they did not know about it. I am basing it on my experience of speaking to survivors on our telephone advice lines. The reality for those women who we hear on our advice lines and who are going through the divorce process is that they find having to state the behaviour particularly difficult. From our experience, removing the fault-based system would help them to get through the divorce process in a safer way.

[Melanie Onn]

Q Is there evidence that demonstrates clearly that no-fault divorces are any less damaging to children than divorces in general? Regardless of whether fault and blame are apportioned, it is still a traumatic event for families, and it involves changed circumstances. We do not have this provision here, but could you point us towards something from north of the border or overseas that suggests that it would definitely ease the anguish of families in that situation?

Professor Trinder: Just now I mentioned that 60% of divorces in England and Wales were based on fault. North of the border in Scotland it is 6% to 7%. Are we, south of the border, so much more badly behaved in marriages than the Scots? [Laughter.]Again, it’s a game. The system is gamed, and the law currently incentivises conflict, because the only way to get a divorce within a reasonable time is to make allegations of fault. It is more likely that 50% of divorces are about behaviour because you do not need an admission, as you do with adultery. In the surveys that we ran as part of our study, that was much more likely to cause difficulties in sorting out child arrangements and to mean contested financial proceedings. The point is that divorces are going to be incredibly stressful and, in many cases, conflictual. The problem is that the law adds needlessly to that conflict. The fault process is a routine and a legal charade that adds nothing. Through allegations and seeing behaviour in black and white, it can derail couples who are managing their divorce reasonably well. It can derail things in a way that adds nothing to the process, and is just a needless problem that does not need to be there.

[The Chair]

Q Do you have anything to add?

Mandip Ghai: I agree with that. Lots of research shows that it is harmful for children to live in a family in which there is domestic abuse, so anything that helps survivors of domestic abuse to separate and leave that situation would prevent any further harm to children, caused by witnessing domestic abuse.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

Q Professor Trinder, I just want to pick up a point that you mentioned about international research and evidence from countries with similar legal jurisdictions as to whether no-fault divorce leads to an increase in divorce. You mentioned the United States, but what is there in New Zealand, Canada and Australia, in particular? Can you help us with that?

Professor Trinder: Most of the research exploring the relationship between divorce rates and divorce law has been from North America and Europe. I cannot think of anything from Australia and New Zealand, but their approach has been—

[Robert Courts]

Q So is there an absence of research from countries with similar legal jurisdictions? The United States is similar, but it is not that close. The closest are the ones that I have mentioned.

Professor Trinder: In the United States, each state has completely different laws. Australia and New Zealand are different in that they have had separation divorce. In Australia, the only ground is a one-year separation, which has been in place since 1967. We did a comparative study as part of the research and really struggled to find Australian and New Zealand respondents, academics or experts, because there is just no research on the grounds for divorce. It is just not an issue because the reform took place so long ago and that is just how things are.

[Robert Courts]

Q How do their divorce rates compare with ours?

Professor Trinder: They are very similar. It is also worth noting that the divorce rate between England, Wales and Scotland is almost identical, yet we have 60% fault, while Scotland has 6% to 7%. Fault is not influencing the divorce rate at all. That makes sense because divorces are granted in England and Wales and, with the exception of Mrs Owens, fault is not a barrier at all.

[Melanie Onn]

Q Mrs Owens’ case brought this to prominence in recent years. How many other such cases have there been that I may have missed?

Professor Trinder: It is extremely unusual. About 2% of divorces in England and Wales intend to defend. Most of those cannot actually continue with that, and only about a dozen out of 100,000 cases go to a fully contested trial each year. Owens is the only case that we are aware of in the last two decades in which the decree has been refused. We also looked at defended cases and had a sample of 74, and none of those were upheld. It is worth noting that in those defended cases, most of them were not defences of the marriage. It was not somebody saying, “No, I don’t believe that my marriage has broken down.” Mostly, they were triggered by the law itself. People were objecting to the allegations of behaviour made against them, including what appear to be perpetrators who defended allegations of quite serious domestic abuse. Because the court tries to settle cases, rather than go to a fully contested hearing, what happened typically was that the particulars were stripped out, so the line went through references to very serious assaults and they were removed from the particulars.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q You heard the evidence from the previous panel about a barrier to divorce being the cost of the fee. Is that something you have any evidence for or opinion on?

Mandip Ghai: Yes, I would agree with that. Obviously, fee exemptions are available, but lots of people will not fall within the criteria to be exempt from the fee and will not be able to pay the £550. For survivors particularly, the option of sharing the fee with the respondent is not there, and even if she is able to get a costs order from the court to say that the respondent has to pay the court fee, usually he does not pay—

[Victoria Prentis]

Q So is the exemption system not working?

Mandip Ghai: Not yet. For a lot of people, it is not working.

Professor Trinder: I would add that we had interviewees in our sample who had been saving up for their divorce over several years. A couple of years ago, the fee went up from I think £410 to £550, literally overnight, and this man was in tears describing how he then had to start saving again. His divorce was almost in his grasp, after he had saved for several years, and then again taken away. The fees are very high—internationally, they are very high—and they are unaffordable for many people.

[The Chair]

I think we shall move to the Minister.

[Paul Maynard]

Q Thank you both for your evidence so far. For the benefit of the wider Committee, will you set out some specific examples, where there is coercion and control in a relationship, of how the current process facilitates that coercion and control?

Mandip Ghai: Some of it has been mentioned already. Professor Liz Trinder has already mentioned how defending divorce petitions can be used as a tactic. One other thing that we find—I disagree with the previous panel, one of whom suggested that the time period of 20 weeks should start from service—is that sometimes perpetrators will avoid service, deliberately not responding to the petition even though they have received it, or avoiding being served with it, as a way to try to control the applicant and stop her from proceeding with the divorce. They might suggest that they will consent to the petition proceeding, or accept service, if she agrees not to make any financial claims or agrees various things related to children.

Professor Trinder: I agree absolutely with that. Defence is a very stark example; you get respondents defending—causing huge distress to and huge financial costs for the petitioner—not because they believe that the marriage is repairable or saveable but because they simply want to control the other party. Looking at the case files, there are very clear examples of that, so the removal of that ability to continue to control the petitioner in that way is a really welcome future from the Bill.

Mandip Ghai: The other way, which I mentioned earlier, is that sometimes the perpetrator will issue the divorce petition first to prevent her starting divorce proceedings based on his behaviour.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. Thank you. That brings us to the end of our oral session today. The Committee will meet again this afternoon to begin our line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. Note that we will be in Committee Room 9 at 2 o’clock.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Matt Warman.)

10:40

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill (Second sitting)

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Dame Cheryl Gillan, †Steve McCabe

† Afolami, Bim (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)

† Charalambous, Bambos (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)

† Courts, Robert (Witney) (Con)

† Duffield, Rosie (Canterbury) (Lab)

† Gaffney, Hugh (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)

† Green, Kate (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)

† Heaton-Jones, Peter (North Devon) (Con)

† Hughes, Eddie (Walsall North) (Con)

McMorrin, Anna (Cardiff North) (Lab)

† Maynard, Paul (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice)

† Onn, Melanie (Great Grimsby) (Lab)

† Prentis, Victoria (Banbury) (Con)

† Qureshi, Yasmin (Bolton South East) (Lab)

† Slaughter, Andy (Hammersmith) (Lab)

† Tracey, Craig (North Warwickshire) (Con)

† Trevelyan, Anne-Marie (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)

† Warman, Matt (Boston and Skegness) (Con)

Jo Dodd, Mike Everett, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 2 July 2019

(Afternoon)

[Steve McCabe in the Chair]

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill

11:09

[The Chair]

Welcome, everyone. May I remind you of Mr Speaker’s advice that you should switch off or silence electronic devices and that you should not have tea or coffee in the Committee Room?

We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. No amendments have been tabled, but I expect to allow stand part debates on most clauses, which should allow hon. Members plenty of opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. We have to proceed in the order set out in the programme resolution that was agreed this morning.

Clause 1

Divorce: removal of requirement to establish facts etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

Minister, do you wish to make any opening remarks?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Paul Maynard)]

I will see what hon. Members have to say and then round up.

[The Chair]

That is entirely up to you. I call Eddie Hughes.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

May I begin, semi-light-heartedly, by declaring my interest as a Catholic, which informs my position? At the national parliamentary prayer breakfast in Westminster Hall this morning, there was a discussion about the overlap between politics and religion. There are some areas in which I find the two to be inextricably linked, and this may be one of them.

When I entered into marriage as a Catholic, I felt wholeheartedly that it was for life and that there was simply no way out of it; my wife decided otherwise, and we ended up getting divorced. For my part, because I felt that I had stuck to the sanctity of marriage from a Catholic point of view, I was kind of relieved by the idea that it was possible to apportion blame and use the idea of adultery as a basis for the breakdown of the marriage. However, I appreciate that in some cases that may not be preferable. My problem with the Bill is that I feel it will make divorce easier. When a contract is easy to get out of, people enter into it more lightly.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s perspective, but I wonder who he thinks it serves in the long run to apportion such blame.

[Eddie Hughes]

I completely understand the hon. Lady’s point. That is why I am trying to set the context: my very personal view is that the system worked in my particular case, but I completely accept that it will be different for others, as we heard in our evidence session this morning.

My point is simply that we have all visited websites that have asked us to tick a box to agree to terms and conditions. It is highly doubtful whether any of us has ever read all the terms and conditions before ticking the box, because we know that we are entering into a contract that will be really easy to get out of. We have all done it—we have all pressed the button to enter into a contract really quickly, because we know that it is easy to get out of. I am scared about any move in that direction with regard to marriage, because my personal belief is that it is more important than that, as a contract and a spiritual union.

Anyway, I have some points and questions for the Minister about clause 1. The written and oral evidence submitted to the Committee by Mr Hodson raises several key points that really engage with the clause and that arguably highlight the need for amendments that I hope the Government will consider.

The 20-week reflection period is clearly of huge importance. The Bill is about removing fault from divorce, not about minimising the opportunity within the divorce process for couples to gain access to mediation and have a rethink. This may come as a surprise to some right hon. and hon. Members, but in some instances the first occasion on which a spouse finds out that their marriage is in difficulty is the commencement of divorce proceedings. That is the first opportunity they have, with that knowledge, to try to put things right. At a time when the annual cost of family breakdown to the Exchequer stands at £51 billion, according to the Relationships Foundation’s annual assessment, it is imperative that policy makers and legislators seize every opportunity provided by the 20-week reflection period to maximise the opportunities for mediation and reconciliation. Without any expression of commitment to the importance of marriage, the Bill will sound very hollow.

One key measure by which the success or failure of the removal of fault in the legislation will be judged will be the extent to which it creates a better environment within which couples can rethink and save their marriage. To this end, the 20-week reflection period defined in clause 1 is clearly of the utmost importance. At the moment, on the basis of the evidence submitted by Mr Hodson, it seems vulnerable on several points.

First, in a case in which one member of a couple initiates divorce proceedings, if the 20-week clock starts ticking from the moment that they initiate, as clause 1 currently proposes, the other spouse will on some occasions inevitably end up with less than a 20-week reflection period. That is clearly neither fair nor transparent. Will the Government amend the Bill so that it is clear that the 20-week clock will only start to tick from the moment it is clear that both members of the couple know about it?

Secondly, in order for the 20-week reflection period to work well, it is plainly important that a good part of the 20-week period, if not all of it, is made a litigation-free zone, so that the focus can be on mediation. That must extend to ancillary financial litigation. Will the Government amend the Bill so that at least most of the 20-week period, if not all of it, is made a litigation-free zone, including ancillary financial litigation?

Thirdly, will the Government consider changing the point in the process at which the partner seeking the divorce should lodge their statement of irretrievable breakdown? Having it at the start, as the Bill proposes, makes it extremely difficult for the other partner to respond constructively if the intention is for a period of reflection.

Finally, mindful of the importance of the 20-week period referred to in clause 1 for reconciliation and mediation, what new provisions will the Government make to ensure that all couples are offered effective reconciliation and mediation specifically during this period, in an effort to increase the numbers of divorce proceedings that are not concluded, thereby increasing the number of marriages saved?

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I put on the record the fact that the Opposition do not object to this legislation, which is one reason why no amendments or new clauses have been tabled. We welcome this piece of legislation, which has for many years been required and called for, and it is great that the Government have brought it to the House. This morning, Members heard from experts in this area who deal with these types of cases day in, day out, and it was quite clearly their unanimous opinion that this legislation is important, welcome and needed.

No one goes into a marriage expecting it to fail, but it is an unfortunate reality of life that couples may choose to go their separate ways. It is even more unfortunate that, when they pursue a divorce, they do so under archaic law. Among the five permissible grounds for divorce are adultery, desertion and unreasonable behaviour, which involve the allocation of blame to one party. That is unfair and could damage a couple’s children as well.

For decades, campaigners have been asking for this change to the law. This situation was crystallised recently in the case of Owens v. Owens, which ended up in the Supreme Court. Sir James Munby, then president of the family division of the High Court, said in 2017 that

“the law which the judges have to apply and the procedures which they have to follow are based on hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty. The simple fact is that we have, and have for many years had, divorce by consent, not merely in accordance with section 1(2)(d) of the 1969 Act but, for those unwilling or unable to wait for two years, by means of a consensual, collusive, manipulation of section 1(2)(b).”

We heard about that this morning. It is interesting that in Scotland, where the requirement for fault has been abolished, only 6% to 7% of divorce applications are based on fault, yet in England 60% are based on allocation of fault. That raises the interesting question, as Professor Trinder said this morning, of whether we are worse behaved than the Scots. It is not that. In Scotland, people do not have to go through the intellectual dishonesty, as Sir James Munby said, of creating issues of fault.

The Minister will set out the law as it stands, but I point out that if a couple want to divorce in less than two years, they need to start pointing the finger of blame, with one citing the other’s adultery, unreasonable behaviour or desertion. That in itself causes unnecessary strife. However, in most cases, neither party contests a divorce, so they can go their separate ways.

The need to apportion blame, and ratchet up the acrimony, is one of the main reasons why the Opposition want to see an end to fault-based divorce law, not least because of its impact on children. The ground of unreasonable behaviour, for example, requires allegations from one spouse against the other that are hardly ever challenged and can be exaggerated, which will inevitably exacerbate the relationship between the parties and make arrangements regarding children even more difficult. It is therefore unsurprising that most of the legal community supports the changes. About 1.7 million people have assigned blame in a divorce process. Many need not do so, so again legislation is very important.

The Law Commission has called for the current fault-based system to be scrapped. In fact, it recommended that in 1996. It has made several criticisms of the current law, of which many hon. Members are aware, but perhaps they are worth repeating because some believe, and indeed the hon. Member for Walsall North alluded to the fact, that somehow such reform will lead to more people filing for divorce. In a number of cultural and religious communities divorce is actually very easy but the divorce rate is tiny. I do not accept the suggestion of a correlation and that the divorce rate will spike because of a change in the law. It is about societal issues or particular challenges in people’s lives and communities. I do not think a correlation can be seen between changing the law and an increase in the rate of divorce from looking at other countries, cultures and societies where there is a more open or easier divorce system.

One of the problems with our current system is that the law is confusing and misleading. It says that the only ground for divorce is that a marriage has “irretrievably broken down,” but that can be proved only in one of five ways, three of which involve fault. Therefore, the fact used as the peg on which to hang a divorce petition may not in any way bear relation to what caused the breakdown in marriage. The law also pretends that the court is conducting an inquiry into whether and why the marriage has broken down when in fact it does no such thing. Even if a petition is defended, it requires only that the fact is proven.

The current system is discriminatory, favouring those who can afford to live apart for two years before seeking divorce, with the remedies that go with that. Many poorer parties, including many who are victims of domestic violence or abuse, cannot afford to separate unless and until they get orders, which are obtainable only on divorce. Matrimonial home orders under part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 were originally intended to provide a sensible interim housing solution, but the provisions of our current law exclude parties from being able to access it.

The current system is unjust. Adultery and unreasonable behaviour suggest that one party has to blame the other, but many of the technical bars under the old law were abolished. There is little or nothing to stop the more blameworthy one relying on the conduct of the less blameworthy one. It is difficult, expensive and may be counter-productive to defend or cross-petition to try to put matters right.

14:15

In any event, which of us is qualified accurately to assess blame for any relationship breakdown? Under the current law, it is always a matter of blame. That provokes unnecessary hostility and bitterness because it is arbitrary and unjust, and the respondent cannot put his own side of the story across. That can therefore add more anger, pain and guilt, and cause even more problems for the parties concerned. Evidence has shown that it can make things worse for children as well. Often children suffer when parents separate, especially if the divorce is acrimonious.

In October 2017, a large-scale research study by Professor Trinder, who gave evidence this morning, was published, entitled “Finding Fault? Divorce Law and Practice in England and Wales”. The study very much dealt with these matters, and it was great to hear Professor Trinder this morning talking about the research, which confirms that the legislation is necessary and welcome.

The reforms will bring many benefits to separating couples. The legislation will have positive effects on children and will mean that they do not have to talk about one parent blaming the other. It will also mean that the process can be a lot cheaper, and people will not have to go through such emotional turmoil. We have heard the figures about the effect on children, and it has been agreed that the majority of the population of this country has come to the conclusion that taking fault out of divorce is a sensible way forward. I think it is universally accepted that parents fighting with each other and attributing blame has an effect on children.

For all those reasons, we welcome the legislation. To facilitate its passage, we have not tabled any amendments, but we ask the Government to consider two things. The first is the extension of legal aid. Although the reforms to modernise divorce are welcome, I would like the Minister and the Ministry of Justice to consider reintroducing legal aid for early advice. The Law Society, which represents about 140,000 solicitors in England and Wales, has said that legal difficulties around divorce are exacerbated by far-reaching cuts in the justice system, which means that problems often escalate when early legal advice is unavailable.

In cutting legal aid, the Government failed to recognise that solicitors who provide early advice are a significant source of referral to mediation, avoiding costly court hearings. Without early advice from a solicitor, many people do not know that the option of mediation exists, or even how to access it. Will the Minister reflect on the research that has shown that legal aid cuts have forced more people into a do-it-yourself justice system? I certainly hear a number of cases in my advice surgery of constituents who end up in court dealing with unfamiliar procedures as they attempt to resolve the future of their children, homes and finances. I am sure that I am not the only Member who has come across constituents with such issues.

Since the Government implemented the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2013, there has been an increase in the number of litigants in person in the court system. The Law Society argued that not only have the changes failed to divert people away from the courts, but

“they have created additional pressure on the courts as they have to deal with higher than expected case volumes and delays caused by those acting without lawyers being unfamiliar with the processes.”

This leads to unnecessary costs to the taxpayer, because it obviously requires longer in court. If the litigant is represented, matters will be dealt with a lot more quickly. With unrepresented defendants, a matter that would take 10 minutes if somebody had legal representation may take two hours or so. The courts will be running for far longer. The situation causes a lot of clogs in the system at the moment. Will the Minister consider that point? I know that it is not part of the Bill, but this is an opportunity for Labour to flag a concern.

Secondly, many charities supporting victims of domestic abuse are obviously very supportive of the introduction of no fault. They hope that the reforms will make obtaining a divorce simpler for the most vulnerable, especially by preventing any post-separation abuse when a victim has cited the violence as the fact on their petition. Leaving an abusive partner is a dangerous time for victims and the current complexity and length of the divorce process can compound these risks.

An aspect of the Bill is that, where a marriage has broken down in a case of domestic abuse, in reality, there is a limited legal effect of the fault. Those who can afford a solicitor will be advised that they do not have to set out the domestic abuse within the application, as the fault-based fact used to apply for a divorce is not scrutinised thoroughly by the court and rarely has any impact on financial proceedings. It cannot be used as proof or evidence of domestic abuse in subsequent proceedings, such as child contact proceedings. Many people are not aware of that. Women without legal advice are therefore more likely to set out the real cause of their marriage breakdown and are placed at greater harm as a result.

This is an important issue. The Minister probably knows that Women’s Aid raised concerns during the consultation on the Bill because it does not remove the bar on petitioning for divorce in the first year of marriage. This rule can leave women who are suffering domestic abuse trapped during that year. Has the Minister listened to the concerns of charities acting for survivors of domestic abuse? Perhaps the Ministry of Justice can explore this at another time. I hope that he will consider the one-year rule and legal aid. The Opposition will not vote against the clauses or table any amendments.

[Paul Maynard]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and to see so many people in the room, discussing what will be a very important piece of legislation. It is rare that we deliver social change in this place. It often occurs at a glacial pace. However, there are locks on the great canal of British history. Every so often, the locks open, the water flows and the ship of state moves on. It never occurs by unanimity. There will always be some in the avant-garde driving the canal boat through the locks, navigating carefully and ensuring that all the locks open and shut in synchronicity. Others may be less at the forefront—more at the bow of the ship perhaps, questioning, querying, holding to account and analysing the detail. Both are important as we consider any item of social change, and it is right that Parliament reflects all these views. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North has demonstrated, it is very rare to achieve unanimity on any social issue, not just among colleagues in this House but across the country as a whole. I would never object to anyone raising concerns about this sort of legislation when it comes before the House.

We all come to Bill Committees with expectations and enthusiasm. When I served on the Committee that considered the Deregulation Bill in 2014, we spent at least 45 minutes discussing the idea of abolishing the age limit for purchasing chocolate liqueurs. There was a great, furious controversy about how many chocolate liqueurs one had to eat to become inebriated, and no consensus was achieved. I therefore hope that we might achieve a somewhat more broad—in fact, unanimous—consensus on this Bill, which frankly is far more important than the age at which one can purchase a chocolate liqueur.

This Bill is exceedingly important to millions of people up and down the country who are facing the prospect of divorce, have gone through it in their past and have strong views as a consequence, or who are currently in a marriage and considering what they intend to do. Its provisions, taken together, provide for reformed legal requirements in England and Wales by which a marriage or civil partnership may be legally ended through a court order for a divorce or dissolution, or by which an order for separation may be made allowing the parties to a marriage or civil partnership to remain in a legal relationship, but to live apart.

I will start by stating what I hope is agreed by everyone, and is a core Government belief: that marriage is vital to our functioning as a society. It is deeply sad for all those involved when a marriage or civil partnership is beyond repair. The decision to seek a divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership is an intensely personal one. The Government have heard calls to reform the legal process so that it does not make matters worse—calls that are supported by evidence, including that which we have heard this morning, about the harm done by the current legal process and how it is out of step with reality.

The Bill does not seek in any way to diminish the importance of the commitment made when two parties enter into a marriage or civil partnership with each other; that is a profound and deeply personal commitment between two people. I declare an interest: like my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North, I am a Catholic, and I personally believe that marriage is a sacrament in the sight of God. Equally, I recognise that not everybody shares that point of view. We are looking purely at marriage as a civil institution; clearly, many people from many different faiths and none will have religious concerns, but today we are looking at the law on the dissolution of a marriage.

Relationships can, and ultimately do, fail. When a marriage or civil partnership breaks down and is beyond repair, the law must deal with reality, by creating the conditions for people to move forward with the minimum of acrimony and agree arrangements for the future in an orderly and constructive way. Above all, the legal process should not exacerbate conflict between parents, which is especially damaging for children. The process must better support and encourage parents to co-operate in bringing up their children.

The evidence is clear that the current legal requirements needlessly rake up the past to justify the legal ending of a relationship that is no longer a beneficial and functioning one. The requirement for one person to blame the other if it is not practical for them to separate for at least two years can introduce, or worsen, conflict at the outset of the process—conflict that may continue long after the legal process has concluded. Allegations about a spouse’s conduct may bear no relation to the real cause of the breakdown and can be damaging to any prospect that couples will reconcile or agree practical arrangements for the future. In the extremely difficult circumstances of divorce, the law should allow couples to move on constructively when reconciliation is not possible.

I will now deal with clause 1, which relates to divorce as a whole. This clause is key to the Government’s whole approach to this Bill and its principled approach to reducing conflict in divorce proceedings. Other clauses regarding the legal requirements for judicial separation, the dissolution of a civil partnership or the legal separation of civil partners reflect that same approach with the appropriate modifications. Clause 1 substitutes for section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 a whole new section 1. The current section 1 contains the grounds for divorce, the legal requirements that a party must satisfy to establish those grounds to the satisfaction of the court, and the powers of the court to grant the divorce if so satisfied.

The sole legal ground for divorce—that the marriage has broken down irretrievably—is retained. Under the existing section 1, a petitioner for divorce is required to show one of the five facts to evidence irretrievable breakdown. Three of the facts relate to the other party’s conduct in terms of adultery, behaviour and desertion, and the remaining two relate to the continuous separation of the parties to the marriage before the petition for divorce is filed. In new section 1, the requirement to show a fact is removed and is substituted by a requirement that the divorce application be accompanied by a statement that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. The new statement is to be conclusive evidence of irretrievable breakdown, and where such a statement has been validly made the court must make the divorce order.

14:34

I want to make it clear that the legal process for divorce cannot save a marriage when the relationship has already irretrievably broken down. Only 2% of divorces are currently contested, and research shows that most often the decision to contest is motivated by the desire of a respondent party to dispute conduct alleged by the petitioner. Since clause 1 removes the use of both separation and conduct-based facts, the ability of a respondent party to a divorce to dispute allegations about conduct falls away.

The ability of one party to a marriage to apply for a divorce order is retained, but clause 1 provides, for the first time, the option for a married couple to make an application jointly, reflecting cases where the decision to divorce is a mutual one from the outset. The Government want to ensure that when the decision to divorce is shared, the legal process reflects that mutual decision.

The current process by which a marriage is ended in two legal stages is retained, but the terminology of the 1973 Act is updated to match the more modern approach in the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The first decree of divorce, currently the decree nisi, will become a conditional order of divorce. The second decree, currently the decree absolute, will become the final order. The removal of Latinate terminology is, I believe, long overdue and will, I hope, be welcomed. As now, the applicant for the divorce must confirm to the court that it may make the conditional order. That will not follow automatically just because an application for divorce has been made. The conditional order does not legally end the marriage; it merely signifies that all the legal and procedural requirements have been met and that the court is satisfied that the marriage can be brought to a legal end. It provides a final opportunity for an applicant to reflect on the decision to divorce, as at conditional order stage the parties remain married.

Clause 1 retains a minimum period of six weeks between the conditional order and when an application may be made to the court for the final order of divorce, mirroring the current period between decree nisi and when the petitioner may apply for the decree absolute.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I wonder what the Minister thinks the purpose of that six-week delay really is. What does he think will happen in these marriages during that six-week period?

[Paul Maynard]

Part of the objective, I believe, is to improve the financial arrangements. People may wish to delay a little longer until such a point. It is not a maximum period; it is a minimum, and the process might well take longer. It is about ensuring that we take a progressive, step-by-step approach to bringing the marriage to an end, and people may wish to tie up further loose ends, which may take longer than six weeks. There has always been a six-week gap to ensure, if nothing else, that all the paperwork is in order.

Crucially, however, new section 1(5) introduces into the legal process of divorce a minimum period of 20 weeks between the start of proceedings and when a party, or either or both parties to a joint application, may confirm to the court that the conditional order may be made. Those two periods together will now mean that in nearly all cases a divorce may not be obtained in a shorter period than 26 weeks, or six months. The 20-week period is a key element of the reformed legal process. For the first time, a minimum period has been imposed before the conditional order of divorce is made. The intention is to allow greater opportunity for the applicant to reflect on the decision and to decide arrangements for the future where divorce becomes inevitable.

The prospect of a couple reconciling once divorce proceedings have started is low, but our intention is that the legal process should still allow for that possibility. It is never too late for a couple to change their mind, which is one reason why we have decided to retain the two-stage process for divorce.

Separately, the new section 1(8) inserted by clause 1 retains the ability of the court in an individual case to shorten the period between decree nisi and decree absolute, which are now the conditional order and the final order, and also extends this discretion to the new minimum period between the start of proceedings and when confirmation can be given that the court may grant the final order or divorce.

I will come on to some of the points that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North and by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bolton South East. My hon. Friend made some interesting and helpful points about how we can ensure, as I have just referred to, that this is as considered a process as possible, and how we can best utilise the 20-week period that I have just set out.

As my hon. Friend may have picked up during the evidence session earlier today, there is more going on to reform the divorce process than just what is in the Bill. There are a number of online initiatives to try to make the process smoother for those going through it, and one thing that we will look at is what changes we can make to that online process to signpost people towards mediation of some sort, counselling and so on, to make sure that they are aware of the broad range of options available to them, which they might not have thought of when they initiated the divorce process.

My hon. Friend also made a point regarding the Law Society’s concerns as to when that 20-week period should start. We have explored this at some length during the consultation. Starting the time period from the acknowledgement of service, as some have suggested, could incentivise an unco-operative party to delay a divorce and could enable a perpetrator of domestic abuse to exercise further coercive control, which is why we have erred on the side of starting it earlier than that.

It is also worth flagging the caveat that we should bear in mind at every stage of this process. When we talk about mediation at this stage of a divorce process, it is often around finances or childcare. The mediation that my hon. Friend and I might think of as laymen is more a form of marriage counselling and relationship support. We should always be careful about that: when we initiate a divorce proceeding, mediation takes on a slightly different meaning from what it might perhaps have during a marriage. As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, 20 weeks allows people more time to sort out their finances, in as constructive a way as possible.

The shadow Justice Minister mentioned the one-year bar on divorce and asked for the reason for that. I confess that I too have asked officials of the first rank what was in the Bill and why this might be. We consulted on it before the introduction of the Bill and there was certainly no broad consensus or hard and fast evidence either way. Many felt that it went against the grain of reforms that recognise marriage as an autonomous troth, as indeed did the Law Society and the Association of Her Majesty’s District Judges. Faced with a lack of consensus and a lack of hard evidence at this stage that the bar causes hardship or is a problem, we propose to keep the status quo. That does not mean to say that the law can never be changed, but we do not believe that it would be the right step at this stage.

Understandably, the shadow Justice Minister raised the issue of legal aid and indeed legal support for those going through a divorce. She will be more than aware that legal aid is already available for mediation for couples who have finances or child arrangements that are in dispute. This provides a non-litigious route, resolving issues and helping families to move forward constructively. We are also investing some £5 million to support innovation across the sector that will help people to access legal support as close to their community as possible.

The shadow Justice Minister rightly made a point about litigants in person. As I have said to her in the past at the Dispatch Box, we are doubling our investment in our litigant in person strategy, but the wider reforms that I have just mentioned with regard to online processes for divorce should make it simpler and more straightforward for people to initiate proceedings online, so they would have less need for active legal help at that stage of the process. The reform programme, the litigant in person strategy and the legal support action plan are all about opening up newer avenues to access legal support that are not just about someone getting that legal help as they come through the courtroom door.

On that particular note, I beg to move that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Judicial separation: removal of factual grounds

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

Does anybody wish to participate in debate on clause 2? I do not see anyone who does. Minister, do you wish to make any concluding remarks?

[Paul Maynard]

I am not sure people will have the patience for me to read out all my notes on every clause.

[The Chair]

There is no requirement.

[Paul Maynard]

I do feel I ought to. My notes are now all shorter than they were for clause 1. It might help Members if I make it clear for the sake of the record that clause 2 refers to the idea of judicial separation, by which a party to a marriage may obtain a judicial separation order. Judicial separation is rarely used nowadays, with fewer than 300 judicial separation petitions made annually in comparison with around 110,000 petitions for divorce. We recognise, however, that divorce is not an option for some couples because of deeply held religious or other beliefs. Judicial separation therefore continues to provide an important legal alternative for those couples, and that is why we have decided to retain it. Clause 2 broadly reflects the changes made in clause 1 and applies them to the issue of judicial separation. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Dissolution: removal of requirement to establish facts

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

Minister, do you wish to make any opening remarks? Does anyone else wish to participate in debate on clause 3? I will take that as a no. Minister, do you wish to say anything in conclusion?

[Paul Maynard]

I was going to take clauses 3 and 4 together.

[The Chair]

You may refer to them both, but we have to take them separately.

[Paul Maynard]

The only point I will make to colleagues is that, just as we had judicial separation in clause 2, clause 3—and indeed, clause 4 for that matter—refers to civil partnerships and the Civil Partnership Act 2004. It once again takes all the elements I referred to in clause 1 and translates them on to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 so that that is also up to date from where we are currently.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Minor and consequential amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

We support the Bill very much. We had some concerns about the powers that the Lord Chancellor would have in relation to clause 6, but given that they are so limited in scope, we do not propose to object to them. However, we do not wish it go unnoticed that we have concerns about Ministers having—I will not call them Henry VIII powers in relation to divorce proceedings—draconian powers in pushing forward legislation that would remain as primary legislation. I will leave it at that. We do not oppose this clause, but I wish to put on record that we have wider concerns about Ministers’ powers.

14:45

[Paul Maynard]

I was going to say a few words on this clause, so I am grateful to have the chance to respond to the debate. The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point about the delegated powers. We got the idea from the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which was introduced by the hon. Gentleman’s party. We are reflecting the changes in that Act in the Bill. The powers we are conferring on the Lord Chancellor were exercised by the High Court with the introduction of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. In 2004, when the legislation was updated, it was decided that the power was better vested in the Lord Chancellor for civil partnerships. We are now catching up across the broader spectrum of proceedings with that decision to move the power from the High Court to the Lord Chancellor. I can justify the devolved powers in question even to myself, and I can even call them Henry VIII powers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Paul Maynard]

On a point of order, Mr McCabe. It is customary to give a lengthy thank you to all those who have participated in the Bill. I fear I would end up making a speech longer than any other speech if I tried to do so, but I thank all Members for their contributions, even if they have been silent contributions of good will emanating towards us. That is good enough for me.

More importantly, I thank all the officials who have worked hard on the Bill for many months. They may even be disappointed that we have taken only 47 minutes to progress it through Committee. I will put them at their ease, because if it is only 47 minutes, it means there is far less chance for me to muck it up at any stage. There will be a sigh of relief at the Ministry of Justice, I suspect, that I have been hidden from scrutiny by taking a bit less time. I thank all my officials and I thank you, Mr McCabe, for chairing the Committee so adeptly. You have facilitated our rocket-powered canal boat moving down the great canal of British history through one more set of locks.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Further to that point of order, Mr McCabe. I place on record my thanks to all Members who have attended today and those who spoke in the Chamber on Second Reading. I thank you, Mr McCabe, for your excellent chairing of this Bill Committee.

[The Chair]

It is certainly close to a record, Minister, but it must be down to the quality of the Committee.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

14:46

Committee rose.

Written evidence to be reported to the House

DDSB01 Resolution

DDSB02 Dr Sharon Thompson, Cardiff University

DDSB03 The Law Society for England and Wales

DDSB04 Sue Kincaid

DDSB05 James Brien

DDSB06 Nicholas D. Hart (retired former solicitor)

Westminster Hall

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 2 July 2019

[Andrew Rosindell in the Chair]

Acquired Brain Injury

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered acquired brain injury.

You might have noticed, Mr Rosindell, that we have considered this matter once or twice already over the past year or two, but today we are looking at some specific elements of acquired brain injury. As all right hon. and hon. Members will know, brain injury can relate to so many parts of Government: the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education, the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and so on. Today we have the Health Minister before us, so I am keen to focus on health-related issues.

I know that many right hon. and hon. Members will have been approached by the Headway charity, clinicians who work in their area, patients or carers of people who have suffered a brain injury, and will want to make a contribution, so I do not intend to speak at great length. I am passionately conscious of the fact that, since I first became involved in this issue in Parliament three years ago, I have met so many amazing people—not only clinicians and people who work in the charity sector, but patients who have had brain injuries and spoken about what that experience is like. It is so important to hear that experience directly from individuals.

One particularly poignant aspect of brain injury is that in the vast majority of cases it is completely invisible. Yesterday, I met Tom Hutton, who is here—I know we are not meant to refer to the Public Gallery, Mr Rosindell, but I have already and have got away with it. He was training on his bike for an Ironman a few years ago and had a collision with a small lorry. He was in an induced coma for a week. There is not a mark on his head. No one who saw him at work or in the street, including a Department for Work and Pensions assessor, would have the faintest idea that he had had a brain injury, or an injury of any kind.

The fascinating thing he spoke to me about is that he has to talk to himself all the time. One symptom of brain injury is phenomenal fatigue, and if the sufferer does not see the fatigue coming, they can experience phenomenal depression, or dysphoria, as it is called.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend not only on securing this debate, but on his fantastic campaigning work in this area. On the symptoms being invisible, Departments, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions, cannot pick up precisely how such injuries affect day-to-day life, and that needs to be improved.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes. The all-party parliamentary group on acquired brain injury—I see that two of the vice-chairs are in the Chamber—has been campaigning to ensure that everyone who does any kind of assessment for the Department for Work and Pensions, whether for personal independence payments, the employment and support allowance, or any other benefit, has a full training in acquired brain injury, so that they understand the variable nature of the condition.

One element of the personality change that may come about is that somebody with a brain injury might be desperate to please the person in front of them, so they might want to give what they think is the “correct answer” to the question being asked by the official. That can give a misleading idea of what that individual’s abilities are.

I have not asked Tom whether it is all right to say all this today—I see that he is nodding, so it is fine. When the Duracell battery inside someone’s head is running low, they talk to themselves to try to re-energise it, but that uses even more energy. That can lead to a vicious cycle: further depression and anxiety makes it more difficult to recharge the battery, in turn making it more difficult to get better.

There are others who have had much more dramatic and traumatic injuries, perhaps where something has penetrated the skull. However, in the vast majority of cases, the injury will be inside the brain. A fundamental part of what we have to address is how the mind and the personality sit inside the brain. Right hon. and hon. Members might have seen the television series “MotherFatherSon”, which deals with someone who has had a massive aneurysm and then a stroke. Lots of things in the programme are not entirely accurate, but many families and individuals have to cope with the very real element of personality change. I met a wonderful woman three months ago told me that she wished that her old self would come back. She could remember what her old self was like, but it is not the person she now is. She just does not know how to recreate that personality inside herself. Again, it is this thing of talking to yourself all the time.

If there has been impairment of the executive functions due to a brain injury to the frontal lobes, particularly in teenagers or as the young brain is still developing, it can lead to all sorts of other problems in terms of employability, and being able to engage with the wider world and their family. Sometimes people share far too much information; sometimes they are far too timid about being able to share information.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

On that point about sharing, as I told the Chamber in the debate on 9 May, my wife suffered from a meningioma. As I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned, a certain fretfulness can come into the character. On sharing, perhaps it is because I live in such a remote area, but I am surprised those who have come through the treatment are not encouraged more to share their pre-operative and post-operative experience with people who are suffering or are about to have a medical intervention, because it would give them great courage and help.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, that is true. Because of the pattern of brain injuries across the country, it may be difficult for people to gather with people of a similar age and background. Lots of people with brain injuries arising from road traffic accidents are quite young—in their teens or early 20s. Sometimes they get put into support groups with people in their 60s or 70s. That is not an impossible combination, but sometimes it is not the most natural grouping for those with a much longer life expectancy.

The most difficult element for a lot of people is the significant impairment in their ability to speak and communicate. Speech therapists are an essential part of the mix in bringing people back to a degree of independent living after a significant event. One worry across the whole of the UK is the shortage of people working in this field, who sometimes do not feel as valued in the team as they might. We need to ensure that speech and language therapy is still available for some time after someone has had their immediate intervention.

One of the most common things that people tell me is that they are accused of being drunk, when in fact they have difficulty speaking properly because they have had a brain injury, not because they are a bad person. They feel the sense of stigma that attaches to not being able to speak as clearly as they might have been able to before their brain injury.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentions that people can have the appearance of being drunk. My 15-year-old adopted son’s mum drank heavily while she was pregnant with him, which is where he acquired his brain injury. The most recent research suggests that every year tens of thousands of children are born in this country with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder; it is a spectrum, as the description implies. It is a massive problem, and it leads to the kind of emotional and behavioural difficulties that my hon. Friend will be familiar with from speaking to those who have had acquired brain injuries later in life. What are his thoughts on what is needed to address the numbers of people who have brain damage through their lives?

[Chris Bryant]

My mother was alcoholic. I do not know whether she drank during my pregnancy—[Laughter.] Was it my pregnancy? I mean before I was born. I am painfully conscious of how difficult it is for women who are alcoholic to stop drinking when they are pregnant. The message about the dangers of drinking during pregnancy has been out there for a long time, but we still have remarkably little in the toolkit for dealing with alcoholism in this country. Broadly speaking, it is still about the 12-step process, which has a very low success rate in comparison with other therapies and which relies on surrendering to a higher being, albeit not necessarily a religious one. It just does not work for an awful lot of people. The syndrome that my hon. Friend refers to is much more prevalent than we realised even 10 years ago. Further research is going on, and we need to ensure that it is fully understood across the whole educational spectrum, as well as the health spectrum.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that brain injury in children and young people requires a different approach from how we handle adult brain injury?

[Chris Bryant]

There are specific issues that affect children. It is a profound source of depression to me as a Labour Member and a socialist that a child from a poorer background is four times more likely to suffer a brain injury before the age of five than a child from a wealthy background. We need to look at all the elements that lead to that, because prevention is far better than cure. I have spoken in other debates about issues that relate particularly to education, including the importance of schools having as full an understanding as possible of how brain injury can affect a child. All the statistics now indicate that every primary school class in this country has at least one child who has had a significant brain injury, although many of them may be undiagnosed. That is an issue for every single school in the country, and I do not think that we have fully taken it on board yet.

The experience of having had a brain injury often includes the sense of being pushed from pillar to post in the health system and in the organisations that the state provides. An element of that is inevitable, because something fundamentally chaotic is being brought into an ordered system. That is how it feels to the individual, too: they knew what their life was, and then suddenly—nearly always completely out of the blue—something has happened to radically change their life and their family’s lives, perhaps permanently. All too often, however, families have to fight for every single bit of support from the national health service, the local authority, the education system or wherever.

If there is one thing that I hope will come out of all the work that we have done in the all-party group, it is that we can change that feeling of having to fight for every single element. So many patients have told me, “If I could devote all my energy to getting my brain better, rather than fighting for support, I would be a useful and fully functioning member of society. I would dearly love to be that person again.” If there were any way in which all the arms of the state could fully recognise that factor, that would be something that we should dearly hope for.

The charity Sue Ryder does an awful lot of work with people who have had brain injuries and other neurological conditions. It reckons that 15,000 people who have had acquired brain injuries are now in generalist older people’s care homes, which are probably not the places to get the right support, but are the only places available. Sue Ryder is aware of at least 515 people who are placed out of area, a long way from home, which means that all the support systems that they might have through family, friends and so on are simply not available or are extremely expensive because of the travel.

We really have to do far better. The Minister is very good on the subject—I have talked to her several times—but the tendency in the NHS and in Government circles is to put a positive gloss on everything and stress all the good things that have happened. I understand that, but we are still a long way from achieving what we all want, and what the people we are talking about deserve.

The national clinical audit of specialist rehabilitation produced a report earlier this year—it has not yet been discussed in Parliament—on all the specialist rehabilitation around the country. Somebody who has had a major traumatic brain injury, or a brain injury caused by factors such as carbon monoxide poisoning, may at first need four or five people to feed them, clothe them, wash them and provide all the basics of their daily life. However, effective neuro-rehabilitation over a sustained period can and often does mean that they need just one person—or, in an ideal world, it gives them back the independent life that they had before, in as large a measure as possible.

The good news from the report is that the rehabilitation prescription that the all-party group has discussed is being steadily rolled out across the whole country. That means that patients and their families can say, “This is what we know we should be getting—we want to make sure that we are getting it.”

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on his speech. Does he share my concern that neuro-rehabilitation in the UK is particularly limited for children? There is just one option for in-patient neuro-rehabilitation and post-hospital discharge, which is run by the Children’s Trust in Surrey. Should not every region have a paediatric neuro-rehabilitation pathway, rather than the patchy and underfunded set of services that we have at the moment?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I know of a case that makes that point extremely keenly, where a young lad ended up having to go from south Wales to Surrey. Obviously in south Wales we love visits to Surrey, but it is a phenomenal cost for the family to have to visit their child there every week because it is the only facility in England and Wales. There is also an emotional cost in being a long way away and not being able to see their child every day. We really need a string of these paediatric services across the whole country.

One of the great successes that the Government have introduced in the past few years is the major trauma centres, which are now saving many more lives—at least 800 more a year. People who would have died of brain injuries are now alive. However, the national clinical audit has found that only 40% of those who were assessed at the major trauma centres as needing in-patient rehabilitation actually got it. That means that across England and Wales we are probably about 330 beds short. We have to strive to get those beds and make sure that nobody fails to get the in-patient rehabilitation that they need, not least because rehabilitation works. According to the audit, 94% of those who got the rehabilitation that they needed ended up able to live far more independent lives.

The net saving to the public purse from rehabilitation is significant. Extrapolated over a patient’s lifetime—in many cases it is quite young people who have had brain injuries—the average net lifetime saving from rehabilitation amounted to just over £500,000 per patient. That means that the total savings that would be generated from just this one-year cohort of patients alone was £582 million.

Investing in the 330 beds that are needed, which might cost somewhere in the region of £50 million, would generate an enormous return for the public purse. Leaving aside the finances, there is also a moral imperative. If we can not only save people’s lives but give them back as much quality of life as is humanly possible—if we can do that medically—we should do that as a society.

The other thing that I want to say about finances concerns the injury cost recovery scheme, which is a little-known aspect of the national health service. We always say that the NHS is free, and that is true. However, under the injury cost recovery scheme, local hospitals and ambulance services can reclaim an element of the cost when an individual has had an insurance claim met. The scheme was last reviewed in 2003, but in 2018-19 the sum total brought in by all the hospitals and ambulance trusts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland was £200 million, which is not an insignificant amount of money. In April, the amount that hospitals and ambulance services can charge was increased by the annual health and community services inflation measure, which meant that for in-patient care they can now claim £891 a day and for out-patients £725 a day. However, these amounts are capped at £5,381 a week and £53,278 in total.

These amounts need to be reviewed. There is no reason why hospitals in the NHS should not be able to claim a significantly higher amount when there are significant insurance claims. The extra money would not come out of the money won by the individual; it would come out of the money paid in legal and other costs. The average cost for in-patient care for somebody who has had a brain injury runs to something like £16,000 a week, yet the maximum that the NHS can claim from insurance companies is just £5,381 a week.

A regulatory impact assessment in 2006—the last one conducted by the Government—said that the cost to the NHS then was £170 million to £190 million. I reckon that in this financial year the figure would be more like £440 million, so yet again we have another means to find additional resources to put into these services.

I want to end with the experience in south Wales. I recognise that the Minister is not responsible for that, but a large number of people in south Wales, including constituents of mine and of other south Wales MPs, end up using English health services because we do not yet have a major trauma centre in Wales; there will be one and I hope that it will be very successful. I hope that the Minister will accept that one thing that was slightly left out of the equation when the major trauma centres network was set up was how to integrate fully neuro-rehabilitation—good, strong rehabilitation—and the whole pathway from ultra-acute or hyper-acute services all the way through to care in the community and patients returning to their home. Such integration was slightly forgotten and left to one side, which is why a quarter of major trauma centres in England still do not have a neuro-rehabilitation consultant.

I say to my colleagues in Wales: let us not make the same mistake in Wales. When the major trauma centre opens in Wales, I want to make sure that we have a fully functioning neuro-rehabilitation centre alongside it, so that every single patient who is assessed as being in need of in-patient neuro-rehabilitation will receive it and will continue to receive it for as long as they need it, so that they can return to full health. That should also apply to children and teenagers.

I say that because in the end, although I am not as religious as I used to be, I always have this little thing running through my mind, and I apologise if it sounds too religious or pious for some. Jesus said something about his having come to give people “life in all its fullness”. The sadness for me is that we are managing to save people’s lives but are then unable to give them life back in all its fullness. That is what the NHS should be about in this regard, because otherwise there is a cruelty, if all we do is save somebody’s life but do not give them life in all its fullness.

09:55

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but particularly so on this subject, on which he has done such great work. The report produced by the all-party parliamentary group on acquired brain injury, which he leads, is a fine example of what can be done when politicians from across the spectrum come together, look at a specific subject about which more needs to be done, and produce a report that is thorough, well researched and not antagonistic towards the Government—indeed, it shows a desire to work with the Government to bring about the right kind of solutions.

I therefore thank the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done; he deserves an immense amount of credit. I myself deserve a bit of credit, but much more is owed to those who helped us produce the report, by adding to our investigations, informing our findings and supporting us throughout. Across the scale, the brain injury community, if I may so describe it, deserves great credit for the work we have done so far. As he said, the Minister and the Government, who have given the matter a fair wind and a good hearing, have shown a willingness to listen and a preparedness to change, both of which are absolutely essential.

The last time we spoke about acquired brain injury, I recounted the pattern that most people follow when they have a traumatic event that leads to a brain injury. Of course, not all head injuries lead to brain injuries—it is important to draw that distinction at the outset. Nevertheless, the pattern is straightforward: shock, disbelief, fear and then, with the right support, care and encouragement, realisation and recovery. It might be argued that that is a familiar pattern for most kinds of traumatic injuries that have profound consequences, but there is a difference with acquired brain injury: namely, the effects are immensely variable and sometimes, as the hon. Gentleman said, hard to recognise or discern. Actually, they can be quite hard to discern medically, as well as socially and culturally, as recovery from a brain injury can go on for a very long time indeed, even for many years.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of changed personalities. When I had my own brain injury in my early 20s, the medical experts who were treating to me said that my personality might change. My parents said, “Oh, you don’t know him,” but the doctors said, “No, clinically we have to tell you that his personality might change.” I do not know if it has changed; I might have been less talented, less charming, less accomplished and less clever. [Laughter.] I do not know, do I? How could I know that? For the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; one does not know what one might have been.

The reason I have taken a great interest in this subject since being elected to this place 22 years ago is that I am very conscious that my recovery was sufficient to allow me to fulfil my ambitions, and to allow me to do much of what I would have done anyway. That would not have been easy had I wanted to be a great musician, for example, as I am now extremely deaf and have suffered from tinnitus since my accident. But I did not want to be a musician. It would not have been easy had I wanted to pursue a number of other careers, but the one I wanted to pursue was that of a Conservative Member of Parliament—there is nothing more noble.

My injury did not prevent me from achieving that aim, but I am profoundly and constantly aware that others cannot say the same. As I was in hospital being treated for the immediate effects of my injury and then recovering over a considerable time, I was conscious that others were not as fortunate, that I could have been in a very different place and that, if my life had changed beyond measure, I would have been unable to do what I have done. That subtlety in the changes that take place following an acquired brain injury is the second thing, along with the variability, that I wanted to highlight.

But there is also unpredictability. One cannot be clear at what pace and to what degree recovery will take place. The combination of variability, subtlety and unpredictability makes the aftercare—the neuro-rehabilitation that the hon. Member for Rhondda rightly highlighted—a complex and challenging matter for all concerned; clearly for families and friends and those close to those affected, but also for the medical professionals and all the services that people in these circumstances engage and interact with. The Government must therefore employ the same subtlety and flexibility in dealing with the effects of brain injury.

I know that other Members wish to speak, so I will not go on forever—there will be a sigh of relief in some parts of the Chamber, and probably some disappointment in others. None the less, I want to highlight some things that the Government will need to do. As I said, last time I spoke on the matter it was about the pattern that follows an injury, but I now want to talk, from my experience in government, about what the Government need to do. First, they need to be highly responsive to the changes in the condition of sufferers, and I do not think that Governments are all that good at that; they do many things well, but I am not sure that responsiveness is one of them.

Secondly, the Government need to marry, in their work, the changing diagnostic environment and neuro-rehabilitation. I was recently at my old university, Nottingham, looking at the latest technological changes that will enable people to diagnose the effects of injury through improved scanning, and that is the sort of advance that needs to be married with neuro-rehabilitation. The University of Nottingham is also studying how different modes of rehabilitation can have different effects—which strategies work best for different kinds of individuals in recovery.

Thirdly, the Government need to adopt a cross-departmental approach—that is heavily emphasised in the APPG report. We highlight that although some Departments take the matter extremely seriously and are doing an excellent job, others need to raise their game. That is no surprise, I suppose, but none the less it needs to be emphasised. Various people here will know that we recently had a meeting with a Cabinet Office Minister to discuss how that Department can play a part in co-ordinating that cross-departmental approach. A glance at the report illustrates just how wide that approach needs to be; everything from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, through to the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Work and Pensions, obviously the Department of Health and Social Care, and so on. Almost no Department is unaffected. The Home Office is clearly affected and, with housing, we have responsibilities for ensuring that people are properly accommodated. As almost no aspect of Government is untouched, the cross-departmental approach needs to be re-evaluated, with new thinking about how we can ensure consistency and collaboration in dealing with brain injury.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will happily give way. I am most impressed that no less than a third of the Democratic Unionist party’s Members of Parliament are in attendance.

[Mr Campbell]

I suppose a cynic might say that it is a good job that a third of Labour and Conservative MPs are not here, because otherwise we would not get into the room. The issue that the right hon. Gentleman touches upon is very important. Does he agree that although those directly affected, and their family and friends, want to hear this debate and see that there is support, there needs to be a tangible expression from Departments, both centrally and in the regions, to show that it is more than just words? Action needs to follow, which is exactly the point I believe he is highlighting.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman always makes valuable contributions to our considerations, across a range of subjects, but rarely does he make a contribution that tees me up for the next part of my speech more than that one did.

I was about to move on to the specific measures that the Government can take, which are all drawn from the APPG report but also—I say this less critically than I might—from the Health Committee’s 2001 report on these matters. For example, that report suggests:

“We recommend that the Government requires the statutory services to improve their supply of information on head injury to head-injured people and their families; such information should be given to these people in written and verbal form during their stay in hospital, should be available to GPs and should include the literature produced by Headway—the Brain Injury Association.”

It goes on to say:

“We recommend that those assessing brain-injured people for disability living allowance have specialist skills which enable them to understand the complex combination of physical, cognitive and behavioural impairments characteristic of this type of neurological disability; and that the assessment process is adjusted to allow the input of a patient’s advocate”.

It continues:

“We recommend that the Government makes explicit the level at which responsibility for planning different levels of rehabilitation for head injury should be located”.

Almost every recommendation made in 2001 is pertinent to the circumstances today. That is not to say that Governments since then have done nothing; I emphasise again that the new Minister and her predecessor have given us a very positive response since the publication of our APPG report. We have high hopes of the Minister, who I know wants to end her time in the job by saying just how much she did. [Interruption.] Well, that may be in a number of years, but whenever her time in the job does end, she needs to say, “I did so much for those with acquired brain injury.” That needs to be on her record, and we want to ensure that it is—thus our continued advocacy.

I have just a few points from our report for the Minister to consider. I will rattle through them—there are only six. First, there should be a national review of neuro-rehabilitation, to ensure that service provision is adequate and consistent. Secondly, acquired brain injury should be included in the special educational needs and disability code of practice. Thirdly, all education professionals should be trained, or at least have a minimum level of awareness. Fourthly, all agencies working with young people in the criminal justice system, including schools, psychologists, psychiatrists, general practitioners and youth offending teams, should work together to ensure that the needs of individuals are assessed. Fifthly, in the welfare system, all benefits assessors should be trained to understand the problems that affect individuals with acquired brain injury. Sixthly, a brain injury expert should be on the consultation panel when changes in the welfare system are proposed. I do not say that those are the only important things; we could talk about sports injuries and all kinds of other things that are in our report and have been debated before. But doing those six things alone, or six others taken from the report, would make an immense difference to so many people.

Finally, I want to quote C. S. Lewis—not Jesus but certainly a man who knew Jesus. C. S. Lewis said that

“courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point”.

Courage is required by those who suffer from acquired brain injury, but it is also required by Ministers to make a difference, and I know that this Minister, inspired I hope by the efforts of Members across the House and also by the needs, plight and interests of all those affected by acquired brain injury, will employ the necessary courage to make a difference.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

I am sorry to have to inform Members that there will now have to be a time limit. Five Members wish to speak, so unfortunately the time limit will be around four minutes.

10:09

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for securing this important debate. I know that many Members have been involved in these debates before, so bear with me: as the newbie, I may be making points that they have made many times over, but I think they bear repeating.

There have been many debates about what the definition of acquired brain injury is. I do not think it helps to focus on little details; it is important to be inclusive and generic, and make sure those people who need services, help and support get them. That is why I believe the definition of acquired brain injury should be wide and far-reaching. It is important that we remember that when we look at the various options.

Our national health service is a fantastic service. My constituency of Newport West is very close to Aneurin Bevan’s, so obviously I am going to say the NHS is brilliant—of course it is. It is great at the life-saving stuff, but it is not so great at the long-term rehabilitation needed by people with long-term conditions. With cardiac arrests, lives are saved, but the aftermath and the quality of life afterwards are so important.

Acquired brain injury may be the result of one incident or acquired over a period of time, but its effects are always lifelong and often permanent. As a physiotherapist, I have worked with patients with acquired brain injury at various stages of their journey, from intensive care—when it is very much life or death what is going to happen next—to the sub-acute, high-dependency and in-patient settings. At those stages, there is thankfulness that the person is going to survive, but the reality is beginning to set in that this will not change back any time soon; this is a permanent change, and the family has to deal with it. That is a very hard time for people.

There is then the long-term effect, when people might be back in their homes but are struggling to deal with their adjusted circumstances. That is often a time when people feel neglected, left and lost, and it is important that we focus on that area as well. Acquired brain injury does not just affect one person, but their families, friends and work colleagues; as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda has said, this predominantly affects younger people, so work colleagues are also involved. People always express their wish to provide help and support, but they need advice and guidance on how best to do so, and it is important that we recognise that.

The effects of acquired brain injury are also far-reaching, and might be physical, mental, or even spiritual. Others speak far more eloquently about that, and how it impacts on people’s working and daily lives, but I would like to emphasise the long-term needs of people with acquired brain injury. Research in the field of neuro-plasticity clearly indicates that recovery can go on for weeks, months and even years after an insult or trauma. It is therefore vital that our rehabilitation services can match that, so they must be available for weeks, months and years after the incident. In the later stages, somebody may not require treatment, advice and support every day, but it should be available for them to access when they need it.

I am delighted that the Health Minister is here today, and I would like to make a plea to her for additional resources for the vital services that people with acquired brain injury require in the long term. Obviously as a physiotherapist I am biased, so I am going to say we need more physios, but we also need occupational therapists, speech and language therapists, and providers of other therapies. Psychological input and support is also vital, and people often overlook that important aspect of rehab. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) has also mentioned diagnostics, because if we do not know what we are dealing with, we cannot treat it effectively.

It is really important that we have those additional resources when we need them; they should be accessible through time, over months and years. It is important to remember that this is not an event, but a process.

10:14

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for having set the scene so well, and for the hard work that he does in the health sector. I have said before in this Chamber that this issue is very close to my heart, as my brother Keith had a severe motorbike accident some 16 years ago, which almost took his life and which irrevocably changed it. We were told that he would be almost like a vegetable, and although he certainly is not the same, he has a degree of independence fostered by four daily carers’ calls; my wife and sons visiting my house at the end of the lane, where he lives, daily; my 87-year-old—soon to be 88-year-old—mother taking care of him; and the local members of my Orange lodge and church groups being incredibly good to him. It is truly a collective response.

The fact is that without any of those elements of support, Keith would almost certainly be in a care home somewhere, watching TV or just looking out of a window. We are blessed to be in a community that takes care of its own, but there are so many people without that care and support who have no alternative to being in a residential facility, with no independence or semblance of who they once were. That is incredibly sad, but it does not have to be that way. I put on record my thanks to all those involved in Keith’s care from the time he had the accident, from the surgeons to the nurses and all those who helped, and for all the prayers that were made for him.

Some 350,000 people are admitted to hospital in the UK every year with ABI-related diagnoses as a result of trauma, stroke, tumour, infection, illness, carbon monoxide exposure, or hypoxia. That means that every 90 seconds, somebody with an acquired brain injury is admitted to hospital. In Northern Ireland, some of the stats are quite worrying as well: in 2014-15, there were 11,287 ABI-related hospital admissions, including 5,304 from a head injury and 4,109 from a stroke. In 2015-16, there were 11,121 admissions, 4,916 from a head injury and 4,256 from a stroke. In 2016-17, there were 10,762 admissions, 4,742 from a head injury and 4,269 from a stroke. The figures have fallen slightly, but the numbers are consistent.

We also have carbon monoxide poisonings across the UK. In England and Wales, there are about 30 deaths and 200 hospital admissions each year, as well as 4,000 visits to A&E, costing the taxpayer some £178 million per year—I know that the cost of lives to families is greater, and we should be aware of that. I support the aims of the all-party parliamentary carbon monoxide group, which has recommended that

“the Government introduce preventative measures including mandating CO alarms in all tenures, providing CO monitors in first-time pregnancies, and tackling sub-standard housing that increases the risk of CO exposure.”

Although I know that area is not directly the Minister’s responsibility, I ask her what has been done in relation to it. The APPCOG also recommends that

“Public Health England and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office do more to raise public awareness of CO in order to encourage risk-lowering behaviours at home and abroad.”

It is my belief that we could do more to prevent carbon monoxide poisonings, and those recommendations could positively affect the figures in future.

It is daunting to see someone who one minute is in their prime, and the next is completely changed. I know, because I have seen that; I have lived through it and felt it in a big way. Many people do not see a light at the end of the tunnel, so there is a need for support and respite. Many more loved ones might be able to stay with their family, rather than having to go into full-time care. There must be access to timely, specialist rehabilitation and support services, and an end to the lengthy waiting list for social service assessments for public support.

Finally, I will make a request about the benefits system. We have had to fight for everything for Keith from the very beginning. We were his court appointees; we looked after his financial affairs and everything for him, yet the benefit system does not seem to understand that. We could have had a wee bit more help with that as well, so I put that down not just for us, but for other family members.

I finish with this: as with all things, funding is key. We must rethink this strategy, and realise that it is more cost-effective in the long term to allow people to remain at home with support. More importantly, that means a better quality of life for those people, which has to be a material consideration in any Government decision.

10:18

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for securing this debate. I knew nothing at all about acquired brain injury until I met someone in my constituency called Nicola Hughes, who told me that she also had known nothing about acquired brain injury until her husband acquired his. I do not know the circumstances; I have never asked her, and she has never talked to me about exactly how it happened. What she has made very clear to me is the impact it has had on her, their daughter and their family, and how inadequate she believes the support is for families of people with an acquired brain injury.

Nicola says that the hardest part of the whole journey for her and her family was when her husband came home. Their isolation, and the lack of support that was there for her, for him and for their daughter is something that we cannot allow to continue; it must be addressed urgently. Initially she was expecting him to get better and was waiting for recovery. I know that happens for some people, and it is a wonderful thing and should be happening more, but for some people, that is not the likely outcome. She has had to learn to love and be with a new person, effectively. It is a journey that I do not think any of us can appreciate unless we have found ourselves in that situation.

In Parliament, we talk a lot about inspiring people, and Nicola is incredibly inspiring. She has written children’s books to explain to her daughter what is the matter with her daddy, to normalise the situation and to get her used to what is happening. One of the things Nicola has told me about that concerns me a lot is the lack of consistency in support for families when people leave hospital. She said there is a clear discharge programme in Oxford, where all staff are briefed and letters go to the family’s GP so that the carer’s GP knows that their patient has now acquired this new caring responsibility and may need additional intervention and support. She said that the support is virtually non-existent in some other areas, and I fear that my area of Durham Tees Valley is not up there with the best in that regard.

I have been to Headway and taken the time to understand the pathway on which many of my constituents find themselves. I do not think we have it right. Luckily, thanks to Nicola and her leadership, we have a wonderful Headway branch in Darlington, but if that was not there, there would be virtually nothing for people in such circumstances. Services should be provided according to the need of the person affected and their family, not according to where they live. I know we say that about lots of conditions, but I have never seen it as stark as I have seen it with brain injury. I would be grateful if the Minister could take it upon herself to look at the services available in Durham Tees Valley in particular and to get back to me with her assessment of how far we are from meeting what should be national standards—a minimum expectation for patients and their families.

10:21

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing this debate. Here we are again, talking about acquired brain injury, which is a sign of the determination on the part of those of us on the all-party parliamentary group and our partners, the UK Acquired Brain Injury Forum, the Child Brain Injury Trust, Headway and so many other organisations, to see real change and improvement in this area. We are going to be using the broken record technique to ensure that our messages get across and real change happens. As my hon. Friend said, many brain injuries are invisible, with no outward sign of the lasting injury that has occurred. There are real difficulties for people because of that, including stigma, lack of understanding and practical everyday problems.

I want to talk briefly about children with brain injuries. The invisibility we have talked about is a real problem for them, and the question of whether a brain injury has been recognised or diagnosed is a key factor. It is important that we correct that to improve things for children. A Health Minister is responding to the debate, but the issue is not only about health; it is also about education. Schools have a great impact on the future development of the child. It is not just about what happens on their immediate return to school; it is also about how they continue to be supported and developed at school. Neuro-rehabilitation and adjustments at school are great. Some adjustments are minor, but there are other issues such as noise, light and the shade of paper that is used. All those things can be difficult and need continuous attention. We need to do more to ensure that children get appropriate support.

Charities working in this area are doing a huge amount of work to improve things. I mention in particular the Child Brain Injury Trust, which does great work and has developed some proposals. Sadly there is not enough time today to tell you what they all are, but I refer to my previous speech in Hansard, where people can find all those recommendations listed.

I was disappointed by the Department for Education’s response to our recommendations in the “Time for Change” report. That response sounded like, “Everything is okay here. We have education, health and care plans and governors and schools know their responsibilities.” Things are not okay, however. There needs to be real understanding of the specific needs of children. After all, what happens in childhood seriously affects the life outcomes of young people. As we have heard, that can bring into play things around justice, employment, health and many other areas of life. As we are speaking, the APPG for the prevention of adverse childhood experiences is meeting, and brain injury is one of the key things that can affect the development of a child.

I am glad to hear from colleagues at the UK Acquired Brain Injury Forum that a group called the National ABI Education and Learning Syndicate, or N-ABLES, has been put together to look at practical steps to raise awareness and to take work forward. I would tell Members so much more if I had the time, but I do not, so I will just say that those people are doing some good work. I encourage the Minister to speak to her colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that that link is made and that practical steps are taken.

Finally, I want to mention one of our local organisations, a great north-east charity called One Punch North East. It is working hard to say that something as simple as a minute or one incident can cause life-changing damage. I commend it on the work it does.

00:00

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, and to follow so many fine speeches. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), I am not an expert on acquired brain injury, but I recently met Dr Emily Bennett, who is a consultant clinical psychologist in paediatric neuro-psychology at Nottingham Children’s Hospital. She has provided me with some briefing on the subject, which I would like to share.

As many Members have said, acquired brain injury is an under-recognised, hidden condition, yet it can impact on every aspect of a person’s life. As has been mentioned, 40,000 children and young people report to hospital with an ABI every year, but it is very likely that many thousands more have a mild brain injury that goes completely undetected. That can be associated with a range of cognitive, behavioural and emotional symptoms that can impact on education, health and relationships. It is important that we do more work on that.

We need to address neuro-rehabilitation specifically for young people. An ABI affects their brain when it is still developing and can have a temporary or permanent effect on their functioning. Sometimes it can be forgotten during a young person’s development and their time in school that they have a brain injury. It is important that specialist services follow up with children, particularly at key transitions. Children have a long life ahead of them, so work done in the early years to improve their outcomes can have a long impact through their childhood and adulthood.

An acquired brain injury in childhood can impact on school engagement, attendance and achievement. It can result in young people being more vulnerable to exclusions from school and being involved in the youth justice system. Obviously it can affect their job prospects and further education. It can impact on their mental health and self-esteem, lead to isolation and poor participation, and increase care demands for families.

I have already highlighted the patchy nature of neuro-rehabilitation services. I am pleased that in Nottingham Children’s Hospital, which is a regional centre for neuro-sciences and a major trauma centre for the east midlands, we are fortunate to have a multidisciplinary paediatric neuro-rehabilitation team known as the BRILL team—Brain Injury Living Life. However, that does not mean that everything is perfect, even in our region. There is a desperate need for dedicated rehab beds, follow-up clinics and more neuro-psychological support.

Before closing, I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions. What is being done to ensure that children’s services are better developed and that families are not faced with a postcode lottery as to whether their child receives neuro-rehabilitation? Will the Minister commit to a national review of those services, including those for children and young people? Is there an assurance that the number of rehabilitation beds for children and young people will be reviewed? Will the Government commit to ensuring that children as well as adults leave hospital with a rehabilitation prescription? Will the Minister agree to organise meetings between Departments? As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) said, the links between health and education are really important in making sure that children are well supported. Will the Government invest in and support research so that we better understand the long-term impact of a childhood acquired brain injury? Such questions will help us to move forward.

10:30

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I am delighted to take part in this important follow-up debate on acquired brain injury. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—I hope I have managed to pronounce the name properly this time—for securing the debate. Being in Parliament is a learning experience. I took part in the previous debate with the information that I knew about acquired brain injury, and it prompted different groups and individuals in my constituency to get in touch, so he will be pleased to know that I have some new material today.

We have heard in this debate that the symptoms of ABI are often completely invisible, which echoes a point made to me by one of my constituents since the previous debate. He discussed his own ABI and said that he felt there was often more public and employer sympathy and support for an obvious injury such as a broken leg than there was for a broken brain, which is something we undoubtedly need to address. The importance of speech therapy to avoid people being assumed to be drunk and to get their self-confidence back are highly important points. Since it affects every aspect of our country across all our nations, the financial savings of getting it right give us a financial incentive as well as a moral responsibility to tackle the issue. Fundamentally, for me, the issue is about ensuring that people with disabilities such as ABI can live as independently as possible. Disabled people should have the freedom, dignity and choice to control their own lives. We need to help remove the barriers that stop them from enjoying full and equal access to full citizenship.

It is estimated that ABI is the most significant cause of disablement for people of working age in Scotland. We know that only around 40% of working-age disabled adults are in employment, compared with more than 80% of those without a disability, so we really have to address the employability gap. Many of those with ABI have complex rehabilitation and support needs. The Scottish Government have recently run a consultation on their first draft national action plan on improving the care, treatment and support available to the neurological community. The consultation closed on 8 February this year. They aim to publish their report this summer, and the final national action plan on neurological conditions later this year. I look forward to seeing what comes out of that.

The Scottish Government initiated the National Prisoner Healthcare Network’s report on brain injury and offending, which was published in 2016. The subject of offenders came up in the previous debate, and I admit that I was not fully aware of it at the time. The programme in Scotland was led by Professor Tom McMillan of the University of Glasgow, and it is now in implementation and has developed an empirical basis for the development of a service in all Scottish prisons. The benefits will be to improve the management of people with brain injury throughout the criminal justice system and to reduce the risk of further brain injury in prisoners.

Around 75% of male prisoners and 66% of female prisoners have multiple head injuries. Benefits will also see reduced reoffending—around 70% of those with head injuries reoffend—and improved community reintegration. Those stark figures are striking. It is also worth noting that prisoners with a history of multiple head injuries are more likely to be convicted of violent offences, so there is a lot of work to do. I am grateful that I have learnt that information since the previous debate, so the hon. Member for Rhondda gets full marks for increasing my education.

In May I spoke about the Scottish Acquired Brain Injury Network and I want to discuss more of its work today. SABIN is a managed clinical network based within the NHS in Scotland, comprising clinicians, third sector organisations, patient representatives and non-clinical staff all working to improve the access to and quality of care for patients with an ABI across Scotland. Scotland remains the only country internationally with a single set of concussion guidelines across all sports at grassroots and amateur level. The Scottish sports concussion guidance has been in place since 2016, with the most recent update in 2018 contributed to by SABIN. In addition, research into the consequences of sports brain injury, in particular the study “Football’s InfluencE on Lifelong health and Dementia risk (FIELD)”, is set to provide the first understanding globally of the late consequences of contact sports participation through a series of publications in the next few months.

SABIN was delighted to take part in the Scottish Trauma Network’s second annual conference last week, which took place on 26 and 27 June. Over those two days it was able to highlight to clinical colleagues and Government stakeholders the importance of ABI care within a trauma setting and beyond. Patients with an acquired brain injury are some of the most seriously ill trauma cases; patients are often young, with many years of rehabilitation ahead of them. The need for early access to intensive rehabilitation is a message that needs to be relayed to one and all to support investment in rehabilitation. We cannot emphasise that point enough.

SABIN is currently involved in a geographical mapping of NHS services for acquired brain injury patients across Scotland. It previously did that in 2009, and it will be interesting to see how services have changed over time. Preliminary results from the service mapping highlight key challenges across Scotland: the same key challenges that we heard about from colleagues south of the border. They include a lack of access to rehabilitation; workforce shortages, particularly in relation to staff trained in managing patients with an ABI; the difficulties of managing patients with challenging behaviour; and the need for dedicated ABI units. A full report will be circulated to NHS boards in Scotland and will be available on the SABIN website. It is due for completion at the end of August, and SABIN is keen to work with NHS boards to assist them in planning rehabilitation services. It is worth pointing out that the first of four major trauma centres opened in Aberdeen in October, and those services have not been included in the mapping exercise. Things are improving, but the report will still be of significant interest.

Alcohol Health Alliance, in advance of today’s debate, has highlighted the link between alcohol and injuries and accidents that can cause an ABI, and also the link between ABI and problem alcohol consumption. Actions taken in Scotland to reduce alcohol abuse have seen the number of alcohol-related emergency hospital admissions fall by more than 17% since 2007, so there is good practice out there. One of our more recent innovations has been minimum unit pricing. It is probably too early to say how it has affected ABI or other health issues, but sales have dropped by 3% since it was introduced last year. Alcohol sales per adult in Scotland are now at the lowest level for 25 years, so the Minister might wish to consider something similar for England, as I am sure it will have many benefits for health and not just for ABI.

It has been a pleasure to take part in the debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda for securing it.

10:37

[Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate, particularly those who have shared their personal experiences and those of their constituents, as well as their expertise in various areas. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for securing yet another debate on this important subject. No cause could have a greater champion. He challenged Members in the previous debate on this subject to learn how to pronounce the name of his constituency properly. Well, I can assure my hon. Friend that I will try my best to do better today. I also pay tribute to all the members of the APPG for the excellent work that they do in raising awareness of this really important subject.

We are here again today debating the subject because of the scale of the problem: currently, 1.3 million people in the UK live with an acquired brain injury. Every 90 seconds someone is admitted to hospital with such a brain injury. We have considered the human cost of acquired brain injury in this debate and we have also heard of the financial cost. In the previous debate the Minister said that it cost the UK economy £1 billion, but the APPG reports that the truer figure is £15 billion, alongside the human cost.

Consideration of this subject is not new. The Health Committee has been reporting on the issue since the turn of the century, furnishing Parliament with a raft of recommendations, many of which have never been implemented, so it really is time for change. Last year the APPG set out a range of recommendations for the kind of support and rehabilitation that must be made available. As the term suggests, acquired brain injury applies to injury caused to the brain after birth, and it can happen to anyone at any time. It is usually caused by a trauma to the head but can be the result of substance abuse, and the Alcohol Health Alliance has reported on the growing incidence of alcohol-related brain injury. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) talked about the effect on unborn infants of foetal alcohol syndrome.

All Members have constituents who have lived with the consequences of ABI. A brain injury can happen in an instant, but its effects can be devastating and lead to lifelong challenges. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda mentioned that the condition is often not visible, and that sufferers can appear to be drunk. There is a tremendous lack of understanding in the community. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) talked about the fact that it is difficult to detect, medically, socially and culturally. There is a total lack of understanding.

Owing to improvements in medical procedures and acute care, more people than ever before survive following an injury to the brain. That is of course really welcome, but it brings with it a responsibility for Government Departments to support those affected, which is crucially all about quality of life. It is cruel to save lives without following up with support and rehabilitation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) said, sharing her expertise, not providing vital support services is where the NHS is at its weakest. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) talked movingly about the experience of Nicola and her family, and the failure to get the support and help that they clearly needed to get them through.

Early and continued access to specialist rehabilitation has been shown to optimise the chances of recovery and to be extremely cost-effective. As is the case for many health conditions, however, the number of available beds across the UK is inadequate, and service provision is variable. Consequently, long-term outcomes for brain injury survivors are compromised, with many describing being passed from pillar to post. It is particularly distressing to hear the experiences of children, as my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) mentioned.

It is clear that a national review of neuro-rehabilitation is required, with particular reference to the service provision for children, to ensure that provision is adequate and consistent throughout the UK. Members have described current provision as a lottery. All affected individuals should be given a rehabilitation prescription and a well-defined pathway to recovery. I ask the Minister again to focus on that, because NR can help to avoid or minimise disability and optimise recovery. Early access is critical, and substantial evidence demonstrates that NR is both clinically effective and cost-effective.

Will the Minister ensure that every individual with an acquired brain injury gets an NR prescription and has their individual needs specified in a care pathway? Will she ensure that all health professionals in the community in primary and secondary care are trained to recognise the symptoms of acquired brain injury? I asked for those commitments from her the last time we debated the subject. She has demonstrated that she is listening, which we all appreciate, but can she ensure that the Government up their game and act on those precise commitments?

This is not just a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care, of course. In September 2018, the APPG’s report called for reform in all areas and Departments. It should be an issue for the Department for Education, because 24% of children have some sort of brain injury, compared with 1% who have autism. That has clear implications for teacher training, and it is essential that special educational needs and disability specialists are appropriately trained to recognise the signs. It is also a matter for the Ministry of Justice, as ABI can often lead to criminal behaviour. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda has regularly raised the issue of female prisoners who have been found to have brain injuries caused by exposure to domestic violence. All benefits assessors in the Department for Work and Pensions should be trained to understand the problems that affect individuals with ABI. Excessive bureaucracy and form-filling can be a nightmare for many vulnerable claimants, but for someone with an acquired brain injury it can present an insurmountable barrier, leading to sanctions and additional hardship.

As was mentioned in the previous debate, there is a lack of awareness among those involved in contact sports such as football and rugby. Government and professional clinical bodies must work collaboratively to improve health professionals’ knowledge of concussion management. In defence, we must work to ensure that acquired brain injury among veterans is fully recognised and that the appropriate support is made available. The Minister committed to pass on concerns to colleagues in other Departments, and I hope that she will be able to report back on their responses.

We have heard over and over again about the human cost of acquired brain injury. Frankly, it also makes no financial sense not to put the right care plans in place and deliver the support that individuals and their families need. I urge the Government to implement the recommendations of the APPG in full, and to raise their game across Departments to ensure that the people we have heard about today truly get the support they need.

10:40

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Seema Kennedy)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for introducing the debate, and for challenging the Government on this important issue. He is an indefatigable champion for those living with acquired brain injury, about which he has taught me a lot in the few months for which I have been in my position.

I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken, and those who have been present but have not spoken. People have shared personal experiences—things that are painful to them, and that they have lived with for a long time. I particularly welcome the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) to her place. I think that this is the first time that I have responded to a debate in which she has spoken.

As with many long-term conditions, ABI affects not only a person’s health but aspects of their family life, work and relationships. I responded to the debate on 9 May. I am still chasing ministerial colleagues in other Departments for their comments, but because time is quite short I will focus today on the many points that have been raised about the health aspects. However, I will go back to ministerial colleagues, chase them and impress on them that this important issue affects many Government Departments.

I met representatives of Headway after the debate on 9 May, and I thank those who work with Headway and organisations such as the UK Brain Injury Forum. Such organisations are really valuable to people living with ABI. They raise awareness and provide help to support those with the condition, as well as families and carers. The hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) mentioned how important that is. I take on board the report of the all-party group, to which the Government responded, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rhondda and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).

In 2014, two years after the introduction of major trauma centres, there was an independent audit of the regional trauma networks, commissioned by NHS England. That audit showed that patients had a 30% improved chance of surviving severe injuries, and that the networks had saved 600 lives. That does not mean that they are perfect, but some progress has been made since their inception. Although the majority of rehabilitation care is locally provided, NHS England commissions specialised services for those patients with the most complex levels of need. For people who have ABI, timely and appropriate neuro-rehabilitation is an important part of their care.

I thank the APPG for all the work it has done on rehabilitation prescriptions, which reflect the assessment of the physical, functional, vocational, educational, cognitive, psychological and social rehabilitation needs of a patient, and are an important element of rehab care. Of course, the APPG report stated that all patients with ABI should benefit from an RP.

I will touch on lots of the points that Members have mentioned. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda for drawing the House’s attention to the third and final report of the audit, which was published in April 2019, only a few days before we last discussed this matter. It is encouraging that 94% of patients accessing specialist rehab have evidence of functional improvement, but the report suggests that there is more work to be done to ensure that all patients who could benefit from specialist rehabilitation can access it.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)]

Does the Minister share my concern that there is no universal information for when people present at A&E or the doctor’s with a head injury? After I fell off a ladder in 2012, I was surprised that I was not given so much as a leaflet to say that there might be long-lasting effects. Some people are clearly good at picking it up, but it should be absolutely obvious that everyone who strikes their head should be given extra attention by the NHS in case they develop symptoms.

[Seema Kennedy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I was talking to another colleague who had a brain injury just last year, and she said exactly the same thing. That was not in A&E; it was at a GP practice. There are of course training modules for GPs to access, but debates such as this one and my conversations with NHS England can only help in raising awareness. I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that point to my attention.

To return to the audit, its authors estimate that current provision caters for 40% of those who need the services, so there is a lot more to do. On capacity, the audit made some recommendations, including that trauma centres should review their processes and ensure that standards for rehabilitation provision and availability are met, and that commissioners should consider opportunities for development of specialist rehab capacity, both for in-patient and community-based services—a point that hon. Members have raised. These are important points. Although we only had this debate two months ago, I am glad that the hon. Member for Rhondda has raised the subject again. I will discuss with NHS England what it is thinking, what it is doing on the audit and what the next steps are. We need to impress on it the importance of bed provision.

The majority of rehab care is commissioned and managed locally and there are guidelines produced by NHS England, such as the principles and expectations for good adult rehabilitation, which describe what good rehabilitation care looks like. There is additional guidance that covers both adults and children.

Many hon. Members mentioned neuro-rehabilitation for children, and I know that NHS England is aware that there is variability in the provision for children. Best practice guidance was published in 2016, but there is always more to be done. I will take the points away and speak to NHS England. We are looking at how we can educate people on foetal alcohol syndrome, and I am happy to report back to the House on that.

The hon. Member for Newport West raised a specific issue about speech and language therapists and physiotherapists. I very much agree that we need a joined-up approach to care and I am concerned to hear that there is a gap. Members can make representations to NHS England on that. I know the situation is different in Wales, but I would be very happy if the hon. Lady would keep me informed.

The hon. Member for Rhondda raised the injury cost recovery scheme. Again, that is a matter for the DWP and I will be pressing ministerial colleagues to respond on that point. That scheme allows for the recovery of costs for providing treatment to an injured person where that person has made a successful personal injury claim against a third party. It recovers funds from insurance companies and pays into the NHS or hospital ambulance services. The current cap is around £53,000, renewed annually in line with inflation. I will follow up with more detail—the hon. Gentleman looks slightly sceptical.

[Chris Bryant]

I do.

[Seema Kennedy]

I have found it is always good to be sceptical in this place.

The NHS long-term plan was announced in January this year. There are some key actions designed to improve the care, treatment and support of people with long-term conditions, such as ABI. Community services, which play a crucial role in helping people with long-term conditions such as brain injury, remain as independent and well supported as possible and are to receive significant investment. The long-term plan set out £4.5 billion of new investment in primary and community care, including for expanded community multidisciplinary teams, providing rapid targeted support to those identified as having the greatest risks, including those with long-term health conditions.

There is also the comprehensive model of personalised care, which includes self-care, care planning, personal health budgets and social prescribing, and which we hope will reach 2.5 million people by 2023-24.

[Jenny Chapman]

I am worried about the long-term plan. Yes, brain injury is included, but so is just about everything else. My concern is that brain injury is getting lost and is not getting the priority it needs; although I appreciate the Minister taking the trouble to raise points and ask questions, that will not be sufficiently effective. We need something with more teeth. We need to be very clear what a patient can expect, what their rights are and what their family can do about it if those things are not provided. Trusts and whatever the structures are in the different parts of the country must be compelled to provide a certain level of service.

[Seema Kennedy]

I take the challenge set by the hon. Lady. On the question of the response to the audit, I will ask NHS England to show me how it is implementing that. Guidelines are great, and trusts should be doing certain things, but I accept that there is variability.

The hon. Member for Rhondda and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings used some great quotations in their speeches, so I will conclude my remarks with a quotation attributed to Sir Francis Drake, who said:

“There must be a beginning of any great matter, but the continuing until the end until it be thoroughly finished yields the true glory.”

Ministerial office is not something that I take for granted, but I hope that today’s debate has demonstrated how seriously this Government and this Minister take ABI and the devastating effects it can have on our constituents.

10:56

[Chris Bryant]

This has been a good debate and I am grateful to all those who have taken part. I am grateful to the Minister for what is, I think, her bearing down on NHS England, although she is sounding too nice about the way she is going to approach it.

[Jenny Chapman]

Nice is good.

[Chris Bryant]

Nice is good, obviously, but a little bit of bearing down is important. I am grateful to the UK Acquired Brain Injury Forum, Headway, Sue Ryder, the National Star College near Cheltenham and so many other organisations, including the Child Brain Injury Trust and the Disabilities Trust, who have done so much work in the field to inform us about a subject that was completely unknown to many of us, in the same way that it is unknown to so many members of the public.

To correct one element, perhaps we have given the impression that all is gloom. I have met so many people who have had brain injuries and whose personality change has been marked, but sometimes they have developed a phenomenally savage wit that they did not have before. There are people who have said, “Yes, it has changed me, but I have become a new person and that person can play a full part in society and has discovered other ways of appreciating life.” So let us not turn all of this into gloom. I just want us to be able to do better—to make sure that there are enough rehabilitation beds for every single person to get the improved care from which they could benefit.

I have met the deputy Prime Minister several times and I think it is really important that the Government now decide, as a matter of priority, to set up some taskforce—probably of junior Ministers, probably with this Minister at the helm—to drive forward this issue in all the different Departments that it affects. We could get the health bit right and lose out on so many other bits and, in the end, we would have failed the people we are talking about.

Who knows what will happen to the Government? Anybody who says they know what is going to happen to the Government later on this year is lying, but I wonder whether there might not be a moment now to say, “We are going to make this a priority. It is going to be a three-year taskforce and we are going to make sure that every single Department pulls its weight to make sure that we truly deliver.” As I said earlier, it is almost cruel to save lives and not give people the quality of life that they deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered acquired brain injury.

Religious Slaughter of Farm Animals

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Westminster Hall

11:00

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the religious slaughter of farm animals.

Before I get to the issue in the motion, I must say that free votes in the House are wonderful. Those moments when the party structures and the Whips withdraw from the debate—when there are no Whips to point to which Lobby to go through—allow each individual to engage with an issue using their own reason and judgment and can be incredibly refreshing for our politics. Some of the best-quality debates in Parliament take place under free-vote conditions. Cross-party alliances form and, in the end, the House tends to arrive at a sensible and proportionate consensus.

Of course, the party system developed because, if there were free votes on everything, the Government would not be able to get anything done or deliver any of their manifesto commitments, but issues of ethics and religious conviction have always been universally accepted as free-vote issues. For instance, we have free votes on same-sex marriages and on contentious issues such as abortion. My key contention is that religious slaughter should be made a free-vote issue by every party in the House.

Whitehall feels awkward about dealing with this complex issue and it is not sure what to recommend to Ministers. Governments of all shades have tended to leave the issue in the “Too difficult to address” box and have talked themselves into a stance that says, “Now is not the time to deal with it.” If we made it a free-vote issue for the House, we would liberate the Government of that burden of responsibility and, more importantly, liberate Parliament to address the issue.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand to get his thoughts about what he was going to say. In my council area of Ards, there was an abattoir that carried out some of the ritual killings and stunned and so on. It created jobs and stability and there was a system in place, which seemed to be acceptable. Is he looking for changes in the methodology of killing or does he want to stop it entirely?

[George Eustice]

I will go on to advocate a package of measures to improve our law, having looked at the issue in some depth. I would stop short of banning it altogether, but we could make major improvements, which I will come to.

The history of our current derogation is long. The first regulations governing abattoirs and the humane treatment of animals in them were introduced through the Public Health Act 1875, which said that all animals should be “effectually stunned”. In 1904, a committee of the Admiralty considered in some depth the right methods of slaughter to deliver humane outcomes for animals and recommended that, without exception, all animals should be stunned. Subsequently, however, the Local Government Board issued a circular that drew on the advice in the 1904 report. It recommended that, as a general rule, all animals should be stunned prior to slaughter, but it created what has become a long-standing religious derogation for Jewish and Muslim communities.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I declare a number of interests in the industry. The 2017 Food Standards Agency report revealed that 84% of halal-slaughtered animals were stunned prior to slaughter. That means that when the speed of production is important, people will stun them.

[George Eustice]

I was going to come on to that. There is no barrier to using stunning for halal, provided it is what is called a recoverable stun. That same FSA report also worryingly revealed that 25% of all sheep slaughtered in the UK are slaughtered without stunning. That alarming rise is difficult to explain.

Our laws were formalised by the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, where the exemptions for religious slaughter were maintained. They have evolved from that through various stages, but the current position has not changed much since 1995. The principal plank of our national requirements on religious slaughter mainly revolve around standstill times. In the case of non-stunned slaughter, sheep cannot be moved until they have lost consciousness or, in any event, for at least 20 seconds. Cattle cannot be moved for at least 30 seconds, or until the animal has lost consciousness. There is a different requirement for chickens, which cannot be moved to the next stage of production until 30 seconds have elapsed or the bird has become unconscious. The purpose of those standstill times is to prevent stress on the animal.

It is worth recognising how animals die in a non-stun slaughter situation. For sheep, most of the evidence suggests—I have discussed this with officials—that they typically lose consciousness in somewhere between 10 and 15 seconds. It takes slightly longer for chickens, which lose consciousness in between 15 and 18 seconds.

The greatest concern, however, is always the impact on bovine animals—cattle—although they are small in number, because their physiology is complicated by the fact that they have a third artery that goes to the back of the head that continues to supply blood even after the cut has taken place. I apologise to hon. Members for going into the gruesome details, but if we allow such things to happen in our name, it is important to explain exactly what they are. For cattle, it typically takes 40 to 45 seconds for the animal to collapse—not to become unconscious, but to fall off its legs due to the lack of blood supply—and between one minute 20 seconds and two minutes for the animal to lose consciousness. A former Farming Minister, Jim Paice, once described a situation that he had seen when visiting a religious slaughter abattoir where it took six minutes for a bovine animal to bleed to death, which he said was a truly horrific event to watch.

I often hear from representatives of organisations such as Shechita UK that the cut is so precise and clean that it all happens very quickly, but there is not really any evidence to support that. In fact, in the shechita slaughter process, if the blood starts to clot in the throat cut, it is permitted for the slaughterman to push his hand into the wound and disturb the clotted blood to resume the flow. Those are difficult situations. For bovine animals in particular, it is a major cause for concern.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for his point about it being a moral issue. We rear animals as farmers and we want them to be stunned when they are killed. It is we—man—who decide how they are killed, not the animal. New Zealand has brought in stunning for all the halal it does across the world, and it exports a lot to the middle east. When we leave the European Union, we will have the opportunity to have a similar system.

With shechita, I wonder whether we could not at least have post-stunning of bovine animals. What my hon. Friend has described is horrendous and we need to do more to relieve the suffering of those animals.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I will come to how other countries address this challenge.

All sorts of difficulties arise through our current rules on halal and shechita or kosher meat production. There are a wide range of definitions of halal. As hon. Members have pointed out, some statistics suggest that 70% to 80% of all animals slaughtered under halal are stunned. The key requirement for halal is that animals receive an Islamic blessing and that any stun should be recoverable, so that in theory they could regain consciousness. It is very hard to define what is halal, because it ranges from simply playing a recording of an Islamic blessing, right through to non-stun slaughter.

In the case of kosher meat, there is a further problem. The hind quarters of an animal are not deemed kosher, even if the animal was slaughtered under kosher methods. That means that the rump of cattle and sheep ends up going into the mainstream market—usually the service trade through Smithfield, where unwitting customers in restaurants in London and other parts of the country buy the meat not knowing it has been slaughtered by kosher methods.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the labelling of meat, so that consumers know the exact method of slaughter when they order their food from restaurants or supermarkets, might be a way forward to address overproduction and allow consumers to make an informed choice?

[George Eustice]

Labelling is indeed one option, which I was going to come to. It does not get us all the way, because we have the service trade, where labelling would be ineffective at helping consumers to understand how their meat was slaughtered.

If we had a free vote in Parliament, what types of issues might we want to consider? Although this is a sensitive issue, it is important to ask whether our current derogation accommodates a religious need, or whether it is more a cultural interpretation of such a need. There is wide variance in what is defined as halal, depending on local imams.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I am trying to look at the consistency of what my hon. Friend has said. He has acknowledged that, as far as Jewish koshering laws are concerned, the animal has to be killed in a certain way, and certain parts of the animal are not allowed. He started by saying that he would stop short of banning it altogether—I think those were the words he used. How can he reconcile those two things? If we were to have stunning, it would in effect be a ban.

[George Eustice]

I was going to come on to that. Even within the kosher community, there is not a universal view on whether post-cut stunning should be permitted.

A couple of years ago, I visited Kuwait and talked to a meat importer about the issue of halal production. He explained to me that the main requirement in Muslim countries in the middle east is that there is no pork contamination in the food they eat, which is why all their protocols focus predominantly on not sharing machinery between pork production and lamb, chicken or beef production, to ensure that there is no pork DNA. That is their primary concern, alongside ensuring that there has been an Islamic blessing of the food. When I explained to him that the issue of non-stun slaughter was contentious, he said it is predominantly a western cultural interpretation of the Muslim faith. Interestingly, non-stun slaughtered meat is not a particular requirement in middle eastern countries. There are exceptions, but generally speaking that is not their primary concern. Indeed, non-stun slaughter is banned in Australia and New Zealand, which are the largest lamb exporters to all countries across the middle east, from Israel right through to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

The other point about kosher meat is that Shechita UK insists that it is most certainly not a religious ritual, and a Hebrew blessing is not given. It is simply the case that the ancient holy books describe a method of slaughter that they believe remains the most humane approach. The principal concern for Shechita is that there should be no injury to an animal before it is presented for slaughter. They regard stunning as an injury to the animal—that is their particular concern—but that is not a universal view. There has been some rabbinical support for the idea of post-cut stunning, and we know that some abattoirs producing kosher meat allow post-cut stunning of bovine animals.

I turn now to some of the options that we could consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) mentioned labelling, which is a complex area because there is no single definition of halal. The simplest way would be to label meat as un-stunned, because that is a clearly definable legal definition. That causes some concerns for Jewish communities. They argue that if we did do that, we should also list whether an animal has been killed through anaesthetic gas or electrocution, or all manner of other things. Farmwell, which is a leading charity in this area, established a system that all religious groups are willing to buy into: a coded approach of numbers from one to 10, denoting the method of slaughter. However, it does not deal with the problem of food entering the service trade, where unwitting customers would buy it.

There are a number of other things that we could do, including increasing the standstill time on bovine animals. The current limit of 30 seconds was probably due to a drafting error—we know that cattle do not lose consciousness that quickly. We could therefore move the minimum standstill time to at least one minute and 30 seconds or two minutes, to ensure that there is no movement of a bovine animal while it is still conscious. In conjunction, we could require a post-cut stun on all bovine animals, recognising that there is an issue with the physiology of bovines, which leads to a long and protracted death. I do not believe that a post-cut stun would violate the religious beliefs of either the Halal Food Authority or Shechita UK.

As an alternative, we could simply ban the non-stunned slaughter of bovine animals, recognising that there are issues with that. We could introduce a maximum standstill time, which is the approach taken in countries such as the Netherlands and France, where there is a requirement to use a bolt gun if a period of, say, 40 seconds has elapsed after a cut has taken place and the animal has still not lost consciousness.

We could introduce more formal quotas for abattoirs, which is an interesting idea. It is already the law that only food destined for Muslims and Jews is permitted to be slaughtered under our current religious derogation, but we know that there is a real problem with the mainstreaming of religious slaughter. We know that that provision, as drafted in our law, is unenforceable. When I discussed that with departmental lawyers, their response was that if somebody maintains that they thought that the animal was destined for a religious community when they committed the slaughter, that is sufficient to satisfy the requirement, so it is entirely unenforceable. In Germany they have a much more sophisticated quota system. They make an assessment of the need of orthodox religious communities, and abattoirs must apply for a licence and demonstrate that they have an actual market for the food they are producing.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr Rosindell, I will come back to the basic principle. On this specific point, Germany can do it, so why can we not do it? It is not good enough for departmental lawyers to say, “Oh, it’s all far too difficult,” which is effectively what my hon. Friend has said. There is a way through this. We know the market is oversupplied. It should be limited, should it not?

[George Eustice]

I agree that adopting a German-style model, whereby we put in place the measures and mechanisms necessary to enforce something that has been a facet of our law since at least 1933, makes a lot of sense, and is probably the easiest option for the Government, given the alarm that there has been about the growth of religious slaughter.

We could increase the period of standstill time before chickens move on to the next process. There is a very real concern at the moment that there is typically a moving shackle line for chickens, whose throats are cut randomly by people as they go past, but what happens if they miss a chicken? What happens if the chicken is not stunned through a water bath and they fail to cut its throat? The answer is that it probably proceeds to the next stage of production, which if I am not mistaken is a scalding tank to remove the feathers. It could enter that while fully conscious, which is horrific. We should be doing more to check that those birds genuinely lose consciousness before they move on to the next stage. It should not just be a moving shackle line.

[Giles Watling]

It is known that in many cases stunning fails during the process. Should we not clean up our act on stunning, as well as taking on the issue of labelling? I hate to drag my hon. Friend back to that issue, but why can we not put labelling on menus too?

[George Eustice]

So-called mis-stunning is also an issue. I am not pretending that religious slaughter is the only welfare issue. Another area of concern, about which I commissioned some work when I was Minister, is the make-up of the gas mixture used in the slaughter of pigs, which was also problematic. Clearly, because it relates to pigs, it has no religious dimension whatever. There are other issues, and mis-stunning is one of them. The point about mis-stunning is that even if they get it wrong, they are there immediately afterwards with a second stun, which can resolve the issue.

I will conclude at that point, because we have only half an hour and the Minister will want to come back on some of these points. I seek to liberate him, the Government and all his successors from having to wrestle with this difficult issue. Instead, they should make it a free-vote issue and give it back to Parliament to decide.

11:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. It is good to hear the thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who secured this debate on such an important subject.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

Does the Minister agree that there is no conclusive scientific evidence to suggest that shechita is any less acceptable than other forms of slaughter? Does he also agree that this country’s unwritten constitution has always made religious freedom a high priority? The changes that the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) suggests risk undermining the central tenet of our unwritten constitution, which is that religious freedom is important in our society.

[David Rutley]

I completely agree that religious freedom is essential. We had a fantastic prayer breakfast this morning, at which the principles of respect and tolerance were at the forefront of our minds.

On religious slaughter, I restate that the Government’s preference is that all animals should be stunned before slaughter. However, we respect the right of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their beliefs. We therefore allow the religious slaughter of animals by Muslims and Jews for intended consumption by them. The Government believe that that is an important religious freedom, and there is a long history of upholding it in legislation, dating back to the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, which contained an exception from stunning for religious slaughter for Jews and Muslims.

When I spoke about religious slaughter in the debate in this Chamber just a couple of months ago, I said that the Secretary of State and I would be holding a roundtable with a number of interested parties, including religious groups, animal welfare organisations—some of which are here today—and industry representatives. That meeting took place in May, and was a positive and open discussion, with helpful contributions from all who attended. Key issues discussed during that roundtable were the welfare impacts of different slaughter methods, essential ways of improving consumer information, the scope of the labelling scheme and halal assurance.

I strongly believe that the way to make progress—notwithstanding the important contributions of hon. Members from across the political spectrum—is through a roundtable and ongoing constructive dialogue. It is important to remind ourselves that in EU and domestic regulations that protect the welfare of animals at the time of killing, there are additional rules for animals slaughtered in accordance with religious rites, specifically for the production of halal and kosher meat. The primary aim of the welfare at slaughter regulations, which are based on a body of scientific evidence and advice from the European Food Safety Authority, is to ensure that animals are spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering at the time of killing. It would be wrong to assume that the legal requirements for religious slaughter have not changed in the past 25 years.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the Minister very much for giving way. He is dealing with this issue in a very reasoned way, as always. The European law says that all animals should be stunned, and there is a derogation to allow religious slaughter. We have to be careful not to wrap this up too much in the European situation. As we leave the EU, we must be much firmer on how we label and how we manage it, and we must ensure that more animals are not stunned than are needed for particular religions. We can do a lot more, so will the Minister speed up the operation? I fear that it is one of these slow operations that is not getting anywhere.

[David Rutley]

I would be surprised if the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee did not want faster action, as he regularly does. I hope he sees that we are upping the pace on animal welfare, with his support, for which I am grateful.

There are sensitivities on both sides—from a welfare perspective and a respecting religious freedom perspective— which we have to navigate our way through. This is an important debate, and the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth made in his well-considered speech must be taken into account. He mentioned New Zealand. I recently met one of the New Zealand Ministers of Agriculture, and we discussed this subject. I am aware that New Zealand has a quality assurance programme for halal, which we can look into. Some people suggested that Australia has a similar programme, but there is some non-stunned religious slaughter there in eight abattoirs. The focus should be on what New Zealand has to offer.

Mention was made of whether immediate post-cut stunning should be introduced to improve the welfare of animals killed without prior stunning, but when we look at that we must respect religious views. We are committed to continuing this dialogue and debate. The area that we should focus on, because it brings most people together, is labelling.

[Mr Ivan Lewis]

It is very kind of the Minister to give way. He will understand that there is a great deal of insecurity in the British Jewish community as a consequence of institutional antisemitism in the Opposition party. Will he reassure that community, which feels insecure and anxious, that the Government will under no circumstances ban shechita, which is a central tenet of the Jewish faith, in the United Kingdom?

[David Rutley]

I assure Muslim and Jewish communities that we respect their freedoms. Through this debate and the roundtable process that we have put in place, we want to balance those religious freedoms with what more can be done to improve the welfare of animals. That is difficult, but not impossible, to juggle. Through dialogue, we can move forward and learn from what has taken place in other countries around the world. It must be done in the unique spirit of co-operation in this country. That should be respected by all parties in this House. I get the sense from this debate that people respect that requirement and the need to look more at animal welfare.

I think that the way forward is to look at these issues, consider the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, look at the mechanisms we have got through the roundtable forum that we have created, and move that on. We can focus more on labelling. We must engage with the communities and the industry to see how we can take this further forward. Our exit from the EU will provide an opportunity to do that with more conviction and at greater pace. I am sure that will please the Chair of the EFRA Committee. Thank you for your support in this debate, Mr Rosindell.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

World War Two: Polish Contribution

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard in the Chair]

14:29

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Polish contribution to UK war effort in World War Two.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of the summer of 1939 was designed to annihilate and destroy Poland and the Polish nation. [Interruption.]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, Mr Kawczynski, but I remind those in the Public Gallery not to take photographs, as it is not permitted in Westminster Hall.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of the summer of 1939 was designed to destroy and annihilate the Poles. On 1 September 1939, a few weeks after that treaty between the Germans and Russians was signed, the brutal invasion of Poland by German forces took place. Despite so much subjugation—so many cities were destroyed and so many Poles were imprisoned, and tyranny was imposed on Poland in 1939 and thereafter—Poles themselves refused to be subjugated.

Poles share our values of freedom and are determined to be free people. They came from Poland in unprecedented numbers to join up with British forces and fight with their British counterparts in 1939 and 1940. The Polish Government-in-exile came to be based in London. Thanks to the hospitality and generosity of the British Government, the Polish Government-in-exile operated in London until 1989 and the fall of communism in Poland, when a democratic and legitimate Government was finally restored to Poland. The most important battle in which they participated was the Battle of Britain.

Today, I again had the great honour of speaking with Lord Tebbit about his views on the Battle of Britain. One of the most enjoyable things that I have done in my 14 years as a Member of Parliament was to join Lord Tebbit at the RAF club for an Anglo-Polish dinner, where he was the guest speaker. He said something that really resonated with me, that I will always remember, and that I wanted to share with the House. According to Lord Tebbit, the Royal Air Force and the Luftwaffe were so evenly matched in the summer of 1940 that the British side was beginning to lose that battle. Those were the words of Lord Tebbit, not my own.

Lord Tebbit said that replacing the planes was relatively easy—continuing production in armaments factories and creating the planes was fine—but that replacing the pilots was extremely difficult. We all know how long it takes to train a pilot, and it was very difficult to replace all the losses. According to him, the Poles coming in such unprecedented numbers to join to British forces in the summer of 1940 was what tipped the balance to the British side.

Last year, two wonderful films were released in the United Kingdom: “Hurricane” and “303 Squadron”. I have spoken about those films to colleagues, who have then watched them, and I urge you, Mr Pritchard, as my Shropshire neighbour, to watch them if you have the opportunity. They are modern-day accounts to share with the next generations the extraordinary heroism, courage and determination of those Polish pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain. The Polish 303 Squadron shot down more enemy aircraft than any other squadron in the Battle of Britain. Although it is the most famous squadron, it was only one of 16 Polish squadrons embedded in the RAF.

There are now 1 million Poles in the United Kingdom, and we benefit enormously from their contribution to our country. In the past, I have heard people talking about Poles coming to live and work here and how dependent we are on Polish plumbers and other professions, but we were so dependent on those highly skilled and brave Poles who came in 1940.

Last week, I met Mr Burakowski, the new editor of the Shrewsbury Chronicle, which is the main newspaper in my constituency. He told me about the experiences of his father, who was one of those Poles who came over during the second world war and was part of a bombing squadron.

The Poles were led out of captivity in the Soviet Union by the famous General Anders—we have on many occasions invited his daughter, Senator Anna Maria Anders, to address the Polish diaspora in the House of Commons. General Anders brought many Polish soldiers from captivity in the Soviet Union, through Iran, to join up with British forces in Palestine, where they were equipped and trained before joining the British 8th Army.

Before the revolution in Libya, I had the opportunity to visit British and Polish graves, side by side in cemeteries in Tripoli and Tobruk. It was so poignant to see just how young those boys were—in certain cases, they were 19, 20 or 21. The British and Poles fought side by side in desert terrain in Libya, hundreds of miles from their homes, so young and with so much ahead of them—the opportunity perhaps to have children and to live full and successful lives. Yet at the age of 19 or 20, they sacrificed their lives together to fight the tyranny of fascism. That is why we remember them and their sacrifices today.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

We have a Polish community in Coventry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will talk about Polish heroism at Monte Cassino, because that was quite a battle, and casualties were very high among Polish troops.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I will come on to Monte Cassino shortly.

The battle of El Alamein was the turning point in the whole north African campaign. Anybody who has studied maps of the battlefront and topography of El Alamein will realise the extraordinary importance of landmines in that operation. A Pole, Józef Kosacki, invented the mine detector, which was successfully used for the first time in 1941, in El Alamein. As I said, that battle was the turning point in the north African campaign. The allied forces and the axis powers were very finely balanced at that juncture in 1941. Imagine if we had lost and Rommel’s forces had managed to push forward beyond Egypt and take the oil fields of the middle east. The events that unfolded in the second world war may have been very different. We therefore celebrate the great contribution of Józef Kosacki, a great Pole who died in 1990 and who invented the mine detector.

The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) mentioned Monte Cassino. Once the Polish and British forces had gone through El Alamein and Tobruk, retaken Benghazi and Tripoli, and gone through Tunisia, they came up through Sicily and the spine of Italy, finally reaching the Gustav line, which was part of the most strongly fortified, highly elevated defences across the spine of Italy, which were perceived to be impregnable. The most difficult part of the Gustav line was Monte Cassino itself. On 18 May 1944, at 9.45 am, a patrol of the 12th Podolski Lancers Regiment reached the ruins of Monte Cassino. They put a Polish flag there, followed shortly by a British flag.

It is easy to talk about some of those sacrifices and statistics, but today in my House of Commons office I watched the YouTube video of the battle at Monte Cassino—hand-to-hand combat, throwing grenades at each other, and being fired upon all the time. It was perceived to be one of the bloodiest and most difficult battles on the whole of the western front during the second world war. At Monte Cassino alone, the Poles lost 923 men who died, 2,931 injured and 345 reported missing. It is in the lexicon of the whole of the Polish narrative—all Poles carry Monte Cassino close to their heart.

I had better stop talking about Monte Cassino, or I will start to well up. A song called “The Red Poppies on Monte Cassino” symbolised the extraordinary amount of blood spilled by Polish soldiers to reach the top in order to liberate it. We are not allowed to speak in foreign languages in the Chamber, but in Polish the song is called “Czerwone maki na Monte Cassino”, which translates as “The Red Poppies on Monte Cassino”.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way and for his wonderful speech. Has he had the opportunity to visit the National Memorial Arboretum in my county of Staffordshire, which has a statue of a Polish soldier at Monte Cassino, as well as three other statues of Polish servicemen? The statue was unveiled about 10 years ago in a fitting memorial to the huge contribution made by Polish forces during the second world war.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and near neighbour for mentioning that. These Westminster Hall debates throw up all this interesting information, including about the arboretum in his constituency. I very much encourage members of the public watching the debate on television throughout our country to take advantage of a visit to Lichfield, near his constituency, to look at the wonderful arboretum and at that memorial.

General Anders, who led the Polish forces at Monte Cassino, said:

“Twenty two days under constant fire, in terrible conditions, seven days of fierce struggle to break German defences…It was not just the Battle of Cassino, it was a battle for Poland.”

That was from his book, “Without the Last Chapter”.

Recently, we saw the commemoration of the D-day landings on television. Our Prime Minister joined Mr Morawiecki, the Polish Prime Minister, on the 75th anniversary of those important landings. D-day, 1944, was the start of the liberation of the whole of the continent of Europe. Again, the Poles were there at D-day, even though only the month before they were fighting at Monte Cassino. Polish airmen took part in protecting the convoys of soldiers moving towards Normandy. Polish ships took part in Operation Neptune, the naval part of the D-day landings. And, later in the campaign, the Polish 1st Armoured Division, attached to the British and Canadian forces, landed to take part in the fighting around the Falaise pocket.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend add to that list of Polish contributions to the second world war three mathematicians whose work helped to make the breaking of Enigma possible, which ended the war earlier by at least two years?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I have a little section on that later in my speech.

In Operation Market Garden, when the allies tried to shorten the war by landing in the Netherlands, Polish paratroopers took part in unprecedented numbers with their British counterparts. Again, I have had the opportunity to visit the Polish and British cemeteries in the Netherlands, and to see the same recurring theme: the sheer youth of those young men who together gave up their lives so that we might have freedom.

My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) mentioned Bletchley Park. He is absolutely right, because Polish mathematicians and code breakers came over from Poland. Sir Dermot Turing, a relative of Alan Turing, in his book, “The Real Story of How Enigma Was Broken”, highlighted the unique, outstanding and overwhelming contribution of Polish mathematicians and cryptographers to breaking the Enigma codes. I cannot begin to explain how important that was. It gave us the opportunity to understand where German positions and movements would be forthcoming, allowing us to shorten the war by, some suggest, at least two years—my hon. Friend alluded to this—and potentially saving hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives. I will put three gentlemen on the record: Marian Rejewski, Jerzy Różycki and Henryk Zygalski. For someone born in Poland, even I have difficulty pronouncing those surnames —I dread to think what the people in Hansard will do with them, so I hope that I pronounced them correctly.

Recently, a book was donated to the House of Commons Library, and only two weeks ago we had an exhibition here in the House of Commons, about a lady called Krystyna Skarbek—or Granville. According to legend, she was Winston Churchill’s favourite spy. She was a young Polish lady who was dropped behind enemy lines on many occasions. She was instrumental in reconnaissance and in helping to ensure that sabotage against German forces was co-ordinated effectively.

Despite all such extraordinary contributions—my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will acknowledge that Poland made them—the Clement Attlee Government refused to allow Polish soldiers to take part in the victory parade on 8 June 1946, for fear of offending Joseph Stalin. By that stage, that dictator had already managed to impose a brutal, tyrannical communist puppet regime in Poland, but for fear of upsetting him we in this country decided to exclude the Polish forces from the victory parade.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on his tremendous speech. In Suffolk, we are aware of the contribution made from Norfolk and Suffolk by the Polish air force in support of the war effort. On that point—a good one about the failure of the Attlee Government to recognise the contribution of the Polish community, army and air force in the war—next year, 75 years on from VE-day, we could help to put right that wrong by better recognising the Polish contribution to the war effort?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I want to take this opportunity to say that, as a fluent Polish speaker—or attempting to be fluent; it is a very difficult language—when I go to Poland and speak to people in English, what they say is quite different from what they say when I talk to them in Polish. They are very friendly to the British—they love them and want to work with them—but that is still a source of real pain for the Poles. He touches on a very important issue: how do we repair what happened in 1946? How do we engage and work with the Polish diaspora here in the United Kingdom to create a new monument, or do something to ensure that their unique contribution is highlighted? We have a Polish war memorial in Northolt, but in the run-up to many anniversaries can we do something in addition, yet again to celebrate the contribution of Poles and educate the younger generations about their unique contribution?

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I will, to a fellow Pole—half-Pole—from the Labour party.

[Paula Sherriff]

Dziękuję. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my paternal grandfather was Polish; he served in the Polish merchant navy, which is what brought him to the UK. I would love to work with the hon. Gentleman on creating a lasting memorial to all the Poles who contributed so much. My grandfather, Mięczyslaw Bagniçki, was very proud to be Polish to his fingertips. Equally, he thought the UK had given him a wonderful life; he brought up his children here, had a career and was incredibly grateful for everything that Britain and the Queen had done for him. A lasting memorial would be very appropriate.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

We Poles have to stick together. I would be delighted to work with the hon. Lady and anybody else who is cognisant of the unique contribution of Poles to our country, and who wants to demonstrate to the 1 million Poles living in the United Kingdom that we value them, cherish their contribution to our country and are determined to work together to remember these things, even in the modern age. We may be leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe. It is very important to remember that Poland will continue to be an important ally for us in NATO.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has done an excellent job detailing the contribution made across the services in every year of the war. That often is not appreciated, although it certainly is in my constituency, which houses the Polish social and cultural organisation POSK, to which all Members are welcome. I thought he was a little sectarian by talking about the Attlee Government; I am sure he would pay tribute to that Government for passing the Polish Resettlement Act 1947, which was the first mass migration Act that enabled citizenship for about 200,000 Poles who fought in the war.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I very much acknowledge that, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was not trying to make a party political point. I deliberately said “Attlee Government,” rather than “Labour Government,” but I acknowledge his point about their subsequent achievements to protect the rights of Polish people to remain and settle here.

The first thing I gave to Jonathan Knott, the British ambassador to Warsaw, when he came to visit us was a copy of a book outlining Operation Unthinkable, which was Churchill’s plan basically to do the unthinkable: to carry on beyond Berlin and liberate Warsaw. Of course, we had declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939 because of our treaty obligations to Poland. The Poles were sad and concerned that a second front against Germany was not possible in 1939 and early 1940 by the French and the British. At that juncture, the Poles were left to defend themselves, fighting the Germans on one side and the Russians on the other. Towards the end of the war, Churchill wanted to promote those plans to liberate Warsaw, but unfortunately he was thwarted by Roosevelt, Stalin and others. Poland was then subjugated to 50 years of brutal tyrannical communist regime.

I believe I am the only Conservative MP who was born in a communist country. I know what communism is, what it looks like and how it feels. I used to go back every year to see my beloved grandfather, Roman Kawczynski, under communism. What our fellow Europeans went through, being subjugated to a politically Orwellian and economically illiterate system, is beyond comprehension. One reason why the Polish have needed help in the post-communist era to rebuild their country, their industries and their infrastructure is the appalling impact that communism had on their country.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

At the beginning of my hon. Friend’s speech he referred to the terrible pact between Hitler and Stalin that paved the way for the second world war. I think he also ought to make some reference to the fact that when the underground army rose up in 1944, and we wished to supply them with air drops and munitions, the Russians refused to allow our transport aircraft to operate from their bases to help support the Poles in that uprising. I know that my hon. Friend is mainly concerned with the Polish contribution to the effort in Britain, but we should not forget those people in Poland who saved the remnants of families such as mine from extermination by hiding Jewish people at the risk of their own lives.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I chair the all-party parliamentary group on Poland—if any hon. Members have not joined, they had better do so, and I very much invite them to. I think we have 62 members, making us one of the larger all-party groups. When we take regular delegations of British MPs to Poland, we go to see a memorial in Warsaw where one of those British planes crashed in a park while trying to supply food and weapons to the underground fighters in the Warsaw uprising. They were taking on the Germans in the summer of 1944 while the Russians stayed on the other side of the river, allowing the slaughter to take place on an unprecedented scale. I would like my right hon. Friend to know that we laid flowers at the monument in the park where the British plane crashed. He is absolutely right; Stalin refused to allow the British planes, flying from Italy—I think Ancona or somewhere on the coast—to land in Warsaw. They had to fly all the way there, drop the equipment and fly back.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s reference to the sacrifices of Poles in helping their Jewish friends and neighbours during the second world war. Members of my family were shot by the Germans for hiding Jews on our estate in western Poland. Poland was the only country in occupied Europe with the death penalty for helping Jewish people. People knew exactly what they were doing when they hid and protected Jews. In my family’s case, the Germans made my relative watch as they shot his 12-year-old daughter first, then his wife, and then him. His crime was hiding Jewish friends and neighbours. That is something we will never forget and will always pass on to our children and the next generation.

The alliance with Poland today is very strong. We have 1 million Poles living, working and contributing to our country. In a post-Brexit world, their rights will be guaranteed in our country, and they will continue to make a vast contribution to our island. We will not put sea mines in the English channel and barbed wire on the cliffs of Dover. We will continue to welcome highly skilled, highly educated Polish workers to our country with the new immigration work permits that will be afforded.

When we go to Poland, we meet soldiers who are working on a rotational basis in north-east Poland. We already have 150 British soldiers in the Suwałki gap; I hope that is a prelude to a permanent NATO base—or maybe even a permanent British base—in eastern Poland. The Americans are already talking to their Polish counter- parts about an American base in Poland, so I hope that we will follow suit.

I have received a two-page letter from the Royal British Legion; I am not sure whether representatives have managed to come here today. It outlines what its Remember Together campaign is doing to engage with the Polish community up and down the country and, collectively with British counterparts, to remember the tremendous courage and dignity of the British and Polish pilots.

As the first ever Polish-born British Member of Parliament, I take great pride in the contribution of Poles to this country, not only in the battle of Britain, but subsequently. I hope that we will continue to work with this key, strategic European partner for many years to come, to forge ever closer and stronger military and economic links.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I am not going to put a formal time limit on speeches at the moment—it is still fluid—but if Members could keep to five minutes, that would be great.

15:01

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

It is customary on these occasions to say what a pleasure it is to serve under the chairmanship of whoever happens to be in the Chair, and, Mr Pritchard, in this particular case it is a real pleasure as you have a true knowledge, understanding and sympathy for this subject and for the points we are discussing. I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing the debate. Many a time we have stood opposite each other, divided by politics but united by our affection, respect and admiration for the heroic Poles of yesterday and today.

You may ask, Mr Pritchard, why it is necessary for us to repeat this litany of heroism. It has been done before and it may be done again. It is essential that we do so. First, I cannot think of any other example in British history where so small a group of people achieved so much. I will not quote Churchill—he was talking of something different—but in all honesty we owe so much to those few Poles who came here.

Secondly, we have come to acknowledge, respect and understand the contributions that the Poles make comparatively recently. When I was a young man growing up in Hammersmith, I remember friends who were actually called Małgosia described themselves as Margaret and every Paweł called himself Paul. Everybody seemed to conceal their Polishness; we did not understand that they were Polish. Polish history was something we did not know about or understand. It was only with the Polish millennium in 1966—which coincided with the World cup, in which the Poles supported us when we were playing against Germany—that the Poles started to emerge as a people. Even then, we did not understand about Polish history.

I am from west London, born and bred; I know the Katyn memorial and the Northolt Polish war memorial. There are still people, such as our excellent Polish ambassador, who will always wear the red and white insignia of 303 Squadron; I see some people in the Gallery are wearing it today. The contribution that that Polish squadron, based at RAF Northolt, made has been adumbrated by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham; it was extraordinary. We need say no more, except to say that anyone who knows anything about the conduct of the darkest days of the second world war will hang their head in shame if the heroic contribution and the blood sacrifice made by those Polish fighter pilots is not acknowledged.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is speaking with his customary force and eloquence. He is right to say that those living in west London might immediately have that understanding, but does he agree that we need to ensure that that acknowledgment is felt throughout our country? In my constituency, I have been pleased to go along to Polish days where I have been at pains to emphasise that. We need a way of ensuring that everyone in our country can fully understand the sacrifice of those brave Polish airmen and women.

[Stephen Pound]

That is an excellent point. It is almost as if I had asked the hon. Gentleman to ask that question, but it has been a long time since I have been in the Whips Office. That is an important point. I will talk about Scotland particularly, in a moment.

We need say no more about the Polish contribution to the RAF—it has been said before and it must be said again—but I turn to the heroism of the Polish army. Those who fought with General Anders walked, marched and, in some cases, crawled from Siberia through the whole of Iran to north Africa, to turn the tide in El Alamein. As we have heard, they fought from Tobruk up through Sicily and into the impregnable mountain fortress and Benedictine monastery that could not be broken, Monte Cassino, which was occupied by a crack division of German paratroopers—in fact, the crack division of the Luftwaffe.

Those paratroopers held out against one of the biggest combined armies that has ever been assembled. There was a New Zealand regiment made up entirely of Māori, as well as people from north Africa, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and the United States; but there was one group of people—the Poles—who fought their way from hilltop to hilltop, up that precipitous mound, and planted the red and white flag in the still-smoking ruins of Monte Cassino. With the nobility that typifies those people, General Anders’s army then planted the Union flag. I have climbed that hill and seen how difficult it must have been, but my memory is not just of the beautiful and newly restored Benedictine monastery; it is of the graveyard at the foot of Monte Cassino. There is an allied graveyard and a Polish graveyard. Why? There were so many Poles who died that they could not be incorporated into the allied graveyard.

At the base of that graveyard is one grave that stands alone; it is always covered in flowers, either red roses or poppies—poppies, for the poppies in the snow. It is the grave of General Anders, one of the great heroes. Like the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, I recently had the honour of meeting Senator Anders and to briefly discuss those days. There are three sets of headstones in that graveyard: some with the Orthodox cross; some with the Star of David, because Jewish Poles fought there; and some with the Christian cross.

One of the utter tragedies is that while General Mark Clark was racing towards Rome, where the photographers were waiting for him, General Anders was told by the Supreme Commander of the British forces that there would be no return to Poland. He was told that for all the Poles had done, that was it. Because of the pact with the brutal dictator we have heard about, there would not be a British supported return to Poland. As a human being and a hero, General Anders could have done what many of us would have done; he could have said, “In that case we are going home. We are throwing down our rifles, we are taking off our packs and we are leaving.” Anders did not do that. He said, “We fight on,” and fight on they did. That typifies the strength and determination of the Polish people.

I want to touch on an area that has not been touched on in any detail, and that is the extraordinary contribution of the Polish naval forces. In 1939, the Polish navy was in quite good condition. It was a modern navy, with submarines. It managed to escape from Gdańsk and the seaports in north Poland to Leith, the port of Edinburgh, where the flagship, the Piorun—which is Polish for thunderer—was laid down in the John Brown shipyard as the HMS Narissa. She was renamed and crewed entirely by Poles. These Polish ships, which came under the command of the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Dudley Pound, made an incredible contribution in theatres of war from Narvik, Dunkirk, the Lofoten Islands and Tobruk, as well as the Murmansk convoys, where the grandfather of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) sailed with them, to the Normandy landings.

In two particular areas, the Polish navy made an incredible contribution; I beg your indulgence, Mr Pritchard, in allowing me to mention them briefly. The first was the awful night of 13 March 1941, when more than 1,000 people in Glasgow were killed. It was called the Clydebank Blitz. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) who introduced a debate on the Floor of the House about that subject. John Brown’s shipyard and the Singer factory next to it were bombed ruthlessly, and Clydebank and Hardgate, and virtually that whole part of Glasgow, were destroyed. The opposition to the Luftwaffe was led by the Piorun. She was in harbour, undergoing repairs. She had six anti-aircraft guns and some old refitted Bofors guns—what we used to call pom-poms. She fought off the second wave of the Luftwaffe. How many lives she saved I cannot even begin to think. It is extraordinary to think that Piorun was laid down in the very shipyard that she then defended, having sailed from there to Poland and back again. It is almost as if she was born to defend her birthplace, as many a Pole would say.

The second thing is the extraordinary occurrences of May 1941 when the hinge of history was turning. The Germans had massive naval superiority. They had the two best ocean raiders in the world: Bismarck and Tirpitz. They also had the best heavy cruisers: Gneisenau and Scharnhorst. Had they got out into the north Atlantic, our supply routes from Canada and America would have been finished. There would have been no opportunity whatever for us to continue the war at sea. Tirpitz, as we know, was destroyed in the fjords of Norway by the RAF, but Bismarck had earlier that year, in the battle of the Denmark strait, not only destroyed the British taskforce, but sunk the pride of the Royal Navy: the mighty Hood. Many matelots of my father’s generation still say the old “Andrew” died with the Hood. She was the pride of our Navy and Bismarck sunk her and moved on.

In May, Admiral Tovey and taskforce H were sent, under the instructions of Churchill, to the area off the Norway coast to sink the Bismarck. Who was there at the front of that? Not just Rodney and Repulse, but Piorun, the Polish destroyer that steamed ahead as fast as she could, and, it is said, did not even wait for embarkation orders. She left Scotland and headed straight for the battlefield. Then, as we know, Bismarck had her steering gear crippled by a Fairey Swordfish torpedo and was slightly reduced in her manoeuvrability, but she still had powerful weapons: eight 15-inch guns in four turrets. Piorun was one of the ships in that taskforce that on 25 May 1941 received probably the most significant message received in the sea war in the last war, and it came from Bletchley. It came from a Polish interpreter who had managed to break the codes, and it told precisely what the German admiral was doing. Even though Piorun was then straddled at 12,000 metres by a complete bombardment from Bismarck, she carried on. Some say she delivered the coup de grace; some say she was the last torpedo fired into Bismarck.

I will close by saying two things. Betrayal is an ugly word, but I think that in some ways the Poles were betrayed at the end of the war. We compensated with the 1947 legislation, but in some ways we let the Poles down. I would say that the Poles never, ever let us down. It is not for me to make an obvious pro-European pro-EU statement, but is it not wonderful what we can achieve when we fight together in a common cause? If ever I have to fight anyone anywhere at any time, let it be with our brothers and sisters of the free republic of Poland, some of the bravest and most heroic people it has ever been my honour to know.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

We were going to go down to four-minute speeches, but the Minister has kindly given up five minutes of Front-Bench time, so we are back up to five minutes. Can we stick to five minutes, please?

15:13

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing the debate and on his excellent and moving speech. It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) and his wonderful speech.

I want to contribute for two reasons. First, because RAF Tangmere in my constituency played such a pivotal role during the Battle of Britain, and secondly, to thank the Polish pilots, many of whom took to the skies to defend our country and fight for theirs. Their efforts in the second world war were vital and must never be forgotten.

RAF Tangmere and Westhampnett was the most southerly RAF fighter command base during the battle of Britain. It played an historic role in the defence of our country during our darkest hour over the summer of 1940. Many of “the few”, as they became known, including revered pilots such as Douglas Bader and Billy Fiske, flew from Tangmere. The Polish 302 and 303 Squadrons did not fly from Tangmere, but today their contribution has been marked by the Tangmere Military Aviation Museum, which stands on the site of the old RAF airfield.

Last summer the museum held an exhibition focused solely on the contribution made by Polish and Czech air crews: their pilots and their highly skilled crews who came to our country to fight the Nazis after their homelands had been invaded and occupied. More than 4,000 people visited the exhibition over a six-week period, and I was very pleased to meet veterans who had served, and several young people from Poland who were keen to research the roles that their grandfathers and uncles had played in world war two.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady refers to young people attending, but does she agree with me that although it is exceptionally important that the generations would we represent here are made aware and reminded of the bravery and sacrifices that were made, it is even more important that future generations remember it so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated?

[Gillian Keegan]

I completely agree, and that means that this debate and the continuation of memorials, exhibitions, museums and celebrations will always be important for future generations.

The Imperial War Museum records that 145 Polish men fought alongside our pilots during that fateful time, and that period they destroyed 204 enemy aircraft. The people of Britain owe their liberty in part to their heroism. I am proud that in Chichester we play our part in continuing to remember them. As many Members have mentioned, Poland’s contribution to our war effort goes far beyond the battle of Britain. The Nazi occupation of Poland was one of the most brutal of the war. Poland was carved up with Stalin under the German-Soviet non-aggression pact and the German-occupied zone became known as the General Government, which was placed under the control of Hitler’s lawyer, a ruthless Nazi called Hans Frank, who was later hanged at Nuremberg.

Although divided, occupied, brutalised and stripped of their identity, the Poles fought on and continued to resist, and 1943 saw the heroic Warsaw uprising by the Jewish community. Later in 1944, the entire population of Warsaw did the same in a heroic effort to liberate their capital city from the Nazi tyranny.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Lady for recognising the Jewish efforts in the war. In September 1939, there were 150,000 Jews serving in the Polish army in that campaign. Many went to fight in the Polish Free Army in France and in the United Kingdom. Just as many fought as partisans and in the Warsaw uprising. My own grandfather, Maksymilian Sobel, fought on the German front as part of the Polish army on the eastern front and commanded the independent motor battalion during the battle of Dresden. I want to put that on the record.

[Gillian Keegan]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. A couple of people have come in late and I have been flexible and allowed them to intervene, but coming in pretty much halfway through the debate pushes the envelope, so may I remind all hon. Members to please attend from the beginning of the debate? We all run slightly late, but to come in halfway through and expect to speak is, as I say, pushing the envelope, however good the contribution might be.

[Gillian Keegan]

The heroism of the two uprisings by the Polish are the greatest acts of resistance against tyranny that the world has ever seen. It is an enduring stain on the record of the Soviet Union’s wartime history that Stalin ordered his troops encircling Warsaw to do nothing while the Nazis put down the uprising and destroyed much of the city.

It is important to highlight the cruel fact that the majority of the Nazi death camps were built in Poland. Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor and Majdanek were all in Poland. Those camps are believed to be where 3 million people were murdered. Over the course of the war, Poland lost 6 million of its citizens, half of whom were Jewish. We remembered them on international Holocaust Memorial Day this year in Speaker’s House, where I was proud that a Chichester choir performed the holocaust opera, “Push”, to Members of both Houses of Parliament.

There can be no doubt whatever that Poland played a huge part in the war effort both in the UK and in resisting at home. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham for securing the debate and I assure him that in Chichester we will never forget the bravery of our Polish friends and allies.

15:20

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. May I first thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for obtaining it? He said that he found some Polish words challenging. In the area that I come from, we have a strong tradition of service with the Polish during the second world war, and if we added the Polish language to Ulster Scots, he would really be challenged. As an Ulster Scot, I will try not to say anything in Polish because it will all come over the wrong way.

I am something of a history buff—my boys would say that I am more of a history geek. On the years when I am able to take a holiday, I read perhaps eight biographies or history books, and I have recently enjoyed learning more about the Battle of Britain, during which the Poles truly excelled. Right hon. and hon. Members have spoken of memorials across the United Kingdom. The first such memorial was built by Ards and North Down Borough Council, with some crowdfunding and working with For Your Freedom and Ours, to celebrate 100 years of Polish independence, as well as the Royal Air Force and Polish Air Force centenaries. A permanent monument has been erected at the Cenotaph in Newtownards, in the middle of Strangford. It was unveiled by the daughters of Polish airmen who were stationed in Ballyhalbert and who met and married local girls and raised their children there.

We have a strong association with Poland in the constituency that I am privileged to represent. That is why there is such interest in the Polish Air Force in particular and its marvellous contribution. The monument is dedicated to the memory of the Polish airmen who lost their lives in the Battle of Britain and other theatres of the second world war. It is in remembrance of 303 Squadron and 315 Squadron—Polish fighter squadrons that were stationed at RAF Ballyhalbert—and all the members of the Polish forces buried in Northern Ireland. The sacrifices and courage of the Polish Air Force during the second world war were instrumental in our victory. Many have said it, and I can say it in all honesty because I know what happened and the contribution made in my constituency. Indeed, Air Vice Marshal David Niven informed us at the memorial unveiling that the Battle of Britain might well have ended very differently without the practical knowhow and courage of the Polish Air Force station in Ballyhalbert. The contribution was significant, and made a big difference. As we leave the EU, the bonds that bring us together through military service and now NATO will last well beyond Brexit. Other hon. Members have said it, and it will not change. The people of Ards and Strangford will always have a soft spot in their hearts for the Polish people, and the memorial is testament to that fact. I am pleased that it is in my constituency.

The Eastend residents association ran an eight-week programme funded by the Housing Executive and council, with the group For Your Freedom and Ours, which gave an in-depth history of the Polish Air Force in Strangford. The group’s membership ranged from teenagers to pensioners, and all who were involved in the programme thoroughly enjoyed it. From talks to tours of areas of significance, the project was truly inspirational. It culminated in the unveiling of the Polish Air Force memorial. It raised awareness among many people in the borough of the role played by the Polish Air Force in the Battle of Britain. I know that my parliamentary aide enjoyed reading a book on the Polish spy Christine Granville, or Krystyna Skarbek, who worked for British intelligence throughout the war. The author of that book, which is tipped to become a Hollywood film, came to an Eastend residents association event.

History records the part played by the Polish Air Force in the war effort, and it has been tremendous to see that history coming to life in my area so many years after the events of the second world war. In late 2018, a Polish consulate finally opened in Northern Ireland, and it was wonderful to see the ambassador playing a leading role in the ceremony to unveil the memorial. It was a tremendous reminder of the strong bond between the Polish people and us. There are some 30,000 Polish people living in Northern Ireland and, excluding those from the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and England, the Polish community is the largest immigrant community in Northern Ireland—far above others. We have a strong relationship. The bonds remain strong, and we have a lot to be thankful for, which is why I am thankful for today’s motion, which seeks to recognise the part played by the Polish in our ultimate victory. We owe them so much.

15:24

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing this important debate.

The United Kingdom is indebted to the Polish service personnel who fought in various campaigns on the ground, in the air and at sea during world war two. Their assistance proved invaluable to the allied war effort. Polish navy vessels and sailors augmented the British fleet. Polish service personnel served proudly, not only alongside the Royal Navy but with the Royal Air Force. It is worth noting that 5% of pilots in the Battle of Britain were Polish and it is said that they were responsible for at least 12% of total victories. 303 (Polish) Fighter Squadron was recognised as the most successful of any allied squadron and four Polish officers were awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.

I have to declare a personal interest in the contribution of the Polish people in supporting the British Army. My late uncle Frederick Kaiser, commonly known as Freddie, was born in Ruda Śląska, Poland, on the Germany-Poland border, and had to leave his homeland at 17 years of age, when war broke out in 1939—never to see his mother again. Uncle Freddie fought in the Polish Army and was injured in the Ardennes forest in Belgium, where he suffered shrapnel wounds to both legs. He was more fortunate than one of his fellow soldiers, who died that day in the bunker they shared. Uncle Freddie was flown to a Polish Army hospital at Invergordon in Scotland and, once recovered, he was based at the Castle Army Camp in Johnstone, Renfrewshire, which I understand housed an infantry battalion. That was one of many camps throughout Scotland where members of the Polish Army were hosted.

Major P. R. Reid MBE MC, in his Colditz trilogy, acknowledges the assistance of the Polish people and the Polish Red Cross with his research. His accounts of world war two include references to the collaboration between British and Polish service personnel. In the final book, “Colditz: The Full Story”, Major Reid records the numbers of the various contingents interned in the castle, listing approximately 222 members of the Polish military, and notes the successful escape by a Polish serviceman in 1941. Although my uncle was not subjected to the rigours of internment in a prisoner of war camp in Germany, it is believed—although he never spoke much at all about the events of the war—that he may have suffered a similar or perhaps worse fate at an earlier stage in his life, having been held in a Siberian prisoner of war camp and freed when the Russians changed sides.

While he was based at Johnstone, Uncle Freddie met and fell in love with my mother’s sister Margaret—so there is a good-news story. They married in August 1947. Like many Polish service personnel, he chose to stay in the United Kingdom. He entered coal mining, first at Holdsworth pit in Patna, East Ayrshire. Then, as many miners did, he moved to Leicestershire in 1964, to continue work at Bagworth colliery near Coalville. He was simply taking his family there for continued work, having exchanged the dangers of conflict for the risks of the mining industry.

Freddie Kaiser passed away in 1988 but fortunately, prior to his passing, managed to visit his former homeland and family. He has one remaining sister, Elfryda, aged 91. To this day Scotland still has close ties with the Polish community. Our shared history is reflected in places of worship and recorded on memorials, such as at St Simons Church in Glasgow, the Polish war memorial at the Royal Air Forces Association Club in Prestwick and the recently refurbished Invergordon Polish war memorial. I trust that the UK Government will also continue to remember the contributions not only of those such as my uncle who served and survived, but of the countless Polish lives lost so that we might live.

15:28

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned the attitude of the Attlee Government to Stalin. I am very pleased that last week we did not show that same attitude to the Russians. At the Council of Europe we stood up with the Poles to try valiantly to prevent the Russians from coming back. We may have lost, but it was a fight worth having.

My hon. Friend also mentioned—I think prompted by my intervention—the role that the Poles played in intelligence. He mentioned the three mathematicians—he gave their names, so I will not repeat them—who helped valiantly to crack Enigma and shorten the war by at least two years. That illustrates an important point: that Poland had the largest intelligence service in the second world war. It covered many countries right across Europe, and beyond. It was responsible for a number of activities, including guiding the allied landings in Morocco and Algeria. Just think of that: the Polish intelligence force guided those allied landings.

In 1943, the British intelligence service received more than 10,000 messages from Polish intelligence—an enormous number. More importantly, the Polish intelligence force managed to capture a complete V2 rocket and send details of it back to the UK so that we could analyse them and help to prevent that rocket from creating any more devastation. That is a fantastic achievement for any intelligence service, and we should pay full tribute to it. We have spoken about the experience of the pilots, and we should not forget those Polish fighter pilots who served alongside Bomber Command and helped it to deliver what it was supposed to deliver to Germany.

The UK holds the records of many Polish personnel, and has freely made them available. They are more than just a symbol of Poland; they are a vivid symbol of the real sacrifice that was made by the Polish people during the second world war. If we can do something with them to make them more available and prominent, I will happily join that campaign to ensure that it happens.

15:31

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing the debate. As he is the first ever Polish-born Member of this Parliament, the debate is on a matter of great personal importance to him, and he always speaks with great passion about his Polish heritage. I must look into joining the all-party parliamentary group on Poland.

I hope I can complement the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, and those of other hon. Members, by providing a Scottish perspective on the Polish contribution to the UK effort during the second world war. One fact that caught me a little by surprise was that most Polish soldiers who were stationed in the United Kingdom during the war were based in Scotland. Initially, around 17,000 Polish troops were sent to Scotland, where they set up camp temporarily in Biggar, Crawford, Douglas and Peebles, and the First Polish Army Corps was quickly formed under the command of Generals Stanisław Maczek and Marian Kukiel. Polish soldiers later went on to establish more permanent bases in Fife, Angus and Perthshire, and by 1944 around 26,500 Polish soldiers were based in Scotland.

Those men were tasked with defending a stretch of the east coast between Arbroath in Angus and Burntisland near my constituency in Fife. They built anti-invasion defences at places such as Lossiemouth and Tentsmuir—locations that were seen as being at risk of invasion from German-occupied Norway. The remains of those defences are still visible at Tentsmuir forest to this day.

Polish naval forces worked alongside the Royal Navy throughout the war, strengthening our sea defences immeasurably. On the day that Germany invaded Poland, 1 September 1939, four Polish destroyers that made up the Polish destroyer squadron sailed into the Forth and were escorted to the port of Leith—the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) alluded to that. Polish ships docked at a number of other Scottish ports, including Port Glasgow, Greenock, Dundee and Rosyth in my constituency. A plaque on a Polish monument in Prestwick in Ayrshire commemorates those Polish sailors who died in the battle of the Atlantic. The Polish contribution in Scotland was huge.

In the RAF, squadrons 304, 309, 307 and 315 were located at airfields in Scotland. Between 1941 and 1943, Polish Spitfire pilots were trained at operational training units located near Grangemouth in Stirlingshire and St Andrews. Edinburgh University supported Polish soldiers to continue their studies while in Scotland, and as a result the Polish School of Medicine was born. That faculty operated between 1941 and 1949 and was the only Polish institution of higher education in the world during the war years—a great testament to the continuing effort made by Polish soldiers in those years.

Dunfermline in my constituency was home to the headquarters of the 7th Brigade Cadre, and for the past few years the Defend Fife event has commemorated the history of world war two through battle re-enactments, film, music and dance. In 2017 the Defend Dunfermline world war two festival was themed around the special relationship between the people of Dunfermline and the Polish soldiers who helped to protect our town during the war. Last year festival volunteers unearthed confidential maps and plans drawn up by the allied Polish armies to enforce roadblocks, checkpoints and positions created by the Dunfermline Home Guard. Delivered by social enterprise Forth Pilgrim Ltd, the festival aimed to attract up to 5,000 people, reflecting the importance placed on the local contribution of the Polish community to the war effort by the people of Dunfermline and Fife. This year the theme is air raids on the firth of Forth and the Polish navy in Rosyth. I look forward to celebrating the contribution made by Polish soldiers during the war in my home town with the people of Dunfermline. I am sure that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham would be made very welcome should he wish to join us.

A few lasting markers have been left across Scotland, and one that caught my eye is the statue of Wojtek the bear that stands in the Princes Street gardens. Wojtek was a 230 kg Syrian brown bear who became the mascot of Polish II Corps. He was made a corporal to secure him passage on a British troop ship bound for the Italian campaign. Beloved by his human comrades in arms, Wojtek learned to drink beer—I think Polish soldiers do that sometimes—smoke cigarettes, and carry artillery shells, which was a role he performed during the Battle of Monte Cassino. Wojtek became a local celebrity in his new home of Hutton in Berwickshire, but in 1947 he was re-homed in Edinburgh Zoo where he lived until his death in 1963. He was regularly visited by Polish veterans.

As we know, after the war many Poles settled in the UK. The Polish Resettlement Act 1947 was Parliament’s first ever legislation for mass immigration, offering British citizenship to hundreds of thousands of displaced Polish troops. According to our national records, in 2017 around 99,000 Polish residents were still living in Scotland.

We in Scotland are particularly proud of our connection with our Polish population, both past and present. That is evident in events and monuments that we continue to hold dear to this day, commemorating what the Poles did for us during the war and the way they have been part of the fabric of our society ever since. I welcome this opportunity to add to that celebration of Polish nationals in the UK. We must continue to talk about their legacy and educate the generations to come so that their efforts and contribution are never forgotten.

15:38

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and I thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for highlighting this important issue. That he has done so not just now but on a number of occasions shows the importance of this debate to him, particularly because members of his family were murdered by the Nazis. Those included the hon. Gentleman’s great uncle, whose daughter and wife were also killed and placed in the grave that he had dug. I pay tribute to him and to all the hon. Gentleman’s family who played a role in the second world war.

In June 1940 the Polish Government in exile in the UK signed an agreement with the British Government to form an independent Polish army, air force and navy in the UK. Some 5% of the Polish army were involved in the battle of Britain, numbering 145 in total, but they were responsible for 12% of the victories and the 303 Polish Squadron was recognised as the most successful allied squadron. Twenty-nine Polish pilots lost their lives in the battle of Britain, and four Polish officers were awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. By the end of the war, 19,400 Poles were serving in the RAF and other commands. During the war, 2,408 Polish airmen were killed, and 300 Polish squadron, serving in the Bomber Command, suffered the highest number of deaths of any Bomber Command in the second world war. Of the 4,000 Polish personnel who served in the Polish navy during the war, 450 lost their lives. Of course, the Enigma code breakers shortened the war by at least two years. Their contribution is hugely recognised and should continue to be so.

As always, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham made a significant contribution. He mentioned the role of 303 Squadron, the navy and the contribution of soldiers at the battle of El-Alamein. He also discussed the interesting issue of heritage. We must not forget the contribution of those airmen, soldiers and naval personnel who served in the war. It is important for us to be reminded of that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) made an intervention on celebrating the contribution of Polish people here. A number of others, including the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), made similar contributions. It would be fitting to have a memorial; perhaps an everlasting one. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the records that have been kept, which could form the basis of that. I ask the Minister to look at those requests.

We must remember the huge role played in Birmingham by Polish servicemen, in particular airmen. The role of 303 Squadron has been well recognised in relation to the Spitfires, which were built in Erdington in Birmingham. Many based themselves in Erdington and are still there. However, we sometimes forget the engineers who serviced the Spitfires. As the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham said, the people who came here were hugely skilled, and those who serviced and repaired the Spitfires were hugely important to the service, because the sooner they were serviced and back in operation, the bigger the contribution they could make. We sometimes forget those people on the ground who worked in engineering, but they must be recognised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who made a fabulous contribution, was heroic and passionate as he always is. Every word he said was meant. What he said about General Anders needed to be said, and he did so passionately. We must recognise and remember the sacrifices of the Polish solders. He mentioned the orthodox Christians, the Jewish Polish contribution and the general contribution made by Christians, which was phenomenal and deserves recognition.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I am grateful to my friend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) for giving way. May I add one more name to that list? General Sosabowski was in command of the 1st Independent Parachute Brigade, which fought so gallantly at Arnhem. We keep remembering the contribution of Poles to British victories. That was not a British victory, but no one contributed to it more gallantly than the Poles, the parachutists and those who came in the gliders, in that fateful battle at the Arnhem bridge.

[Mr Mahmood]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who is also my friend. That shows the determination of the Polish soldiers and personnel who fought in the war to treat it as their own as they defended Poland. The courage of the Polish soldiers has been recognised across the Chamber, and it must continue to be recognised and understood.

The hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) made a good contribution relating to her constituency. She talked about how important it was for the Polish community to play a role in the fighting, which again reminds us of the great sacrifices they made. My friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pushed the sacrifices and contributions made in Northern Ireland, particularly in the Navy. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) spoke of the contribution made by his family, which must be recognised.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North said, many people changed their names after the war to integrate. Some might have felt that necessary, but it is now time for people to re-establish those names and recognise their heritage. The hon. Member for Henley mentioned the work of the intelligence services in capturing the V-2. It was a devastating weapon, so it was a phenomenal achievement by the Polish personnel serving with us in the second world war to get hold of it, reverse-engineer it and see what it did.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) talked about the contribution made in Scotland, particularly to the Navy. As we look across the United Kingdom, we see that people in every single area know where the Polish servicepeople made a contribution, and that is recognised to this day. We must now really push that recognition forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury and the hon. Member for Henley mentioned the creation of a permanent memorial. Will the Minister look at how such a memorial can include a real learning element so that schoolchildren and other people can visit and understand the heritage of those who came here and the support they gave us? While we had much support from the Commonwealth, with people coming across to help during the second world war—my maternal great-grandfather served in Burma—which was gratefully received, the particular contribution made by the Polish people was much welcomed.

15:48

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

Mr Pritchard, I thank you on behalf of us all for chairing our debate. I genuinely commend my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on once again securing a debate on the vital contribution made by Poland to the allied victory in the second world war. I have no hesitation in again paying tribute to all those who served so bravely. I would also like to reflect on the strength of our partnership with Poland today.

Polish service personnel served with distinction in world war two on land, at sea and in the air. They fought in some of the most pivotal battles of the war. At Monte Cassino 75 years ago, it was, as we have heard, the Polish army that broke through Nazi defences and paved the way for US forces to secure Rome. The Poles paid a very heavy price for that victory, with almost 1,000 soldiers killed and 3,000 injured. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), paid tribute to the fallen in May when he visited the scene of the battle as part of the 75th anniversary commemorations.

The Polish navy played a significant role, as we heard in the remarkable speech by the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), in protecting the Atlantic convoys and supporting the D-day landings. Last month in Portsmouth, the Polish Prime Minister joined Her Majesty the Queen, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the leaders of 14 other countries in remembering those who took part in the D-day landings.

Who could forget the 16 Polish squadrons that served in the Royal Air Force, making up the largest foreign contingent? Their bravery helped to turn the tide of the war at a critical moment. Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, head of RAF Fighter Command at the time, later wrote:

“Had it not been for the…Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of the Battle would have been the same.”

Arguably the most famous squadron, 303 Squadron, was stationed at RAF Northolt. In March last year, when he was Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) visited the Battle of Britain bunker there with his Polish counterpart Jacek Czaputowicz to pay their respects.

There is a special House of Commons link with the Poles who fought in the Battle of Britain. There was only one serving RAF officer in the House of Commons at the time, Squadron Leader Robert Grant-Ferris, later Deputy Speaker and then Lord Harvington. After the Battle of Britain, Winston Churchill asked him to move the Loyal Address—in Church House, because our Chamber had been bombed. Harold Nicolson came up to him and said, “I have the perfect poem for your speech,” but he found it only the day after the opening of Parliament. That poem was Thomas Gray’s 18th-century prophecy, which forecast flight and, some might argue, the Battle of Britain. It says:

“The time will come, when thou shalt lift thine eyes

To watch a long-drawn battle in the skies,

While aged peasants, too amazed for words,

Stare at the flying fleets of wond’rous birds,

England, so long the mistress of the sea,

Where wind and waves confess her sovereignty,

Her ancient triumphs yet on high shall bear,

And reign the sovereign of the conquered air.”

Robert Grant-Ferris kept that poem—the best speech he never made—in his pocket for the rest of his life. Every time he told the story, he paid tribute to the Polish pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain. May that poem be a tribute to Polish pilots. After 75 years, I am delighted that I, the son of an RAF officer, have been able to read it into the record of the House of Commons.

I have little time, so I will skip over many things that I would like to say about the strong relationship between the United Kingdom and Poland today. We work on many levels, and when we do, we look back 75 years and beyond at the marvellous relationship between our countries. I wish to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham to say a few more words, so I will just say to all Poles that we in this House offer them our appreciation. To the generations of Poles before them, who fought bravely alongside the UK and our allies to rid Europe of the Nazis, we all offer our deep and enduring gratitude. To our Polish allies and friends today, I reaffirm our commitment to our vibrant modern partnership.

15:54

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his words, particularly that moving poem. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this important debate, members of the Polish diaspora who are in the Gallery, and the many Poles around the United Kingdom who are watching on television.

When we go to Warsaw on parliamentary delegations, we do not go just to the Polish Parliament and the Senate. We take hon. Members to the Warsaw Rising Museum, so they can see for themselves, through films and photographs, the complete destruction of the city. Some 95% or 96% of Warsaw was destroyed in 1944. Adolf Hitler was so enraged, even at the end of the war, that the Poles were determined to push out the Nazis that he said that he wanted Warsaw to be completely expunged from the map of Europe.

Warsaw was absolutely obliterated in 1944, but despite the terrible oppression of the communists, the Poles rebuilt the city. Today, Poland has the fastest-growing economy in Europe at 4.6% per annum. It is becoming an economic engine in the Visegrád group and in central and eastern Europe.

Poland will be an important partner for us as we pull out of the European Union. Whatever our views on the European Union—the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) and I have polarised views—we will need strong, strategic, bilateral partners that are also in NATO and members of the European Union. Warsaw will be one of our most important interlocutors as we continue to engage with the European Union and work together for the common benefit of our continent. I thank everybody for coming, and I thank you, Mr Pritchard, my Shropshire neighbour, for the professional and kind way in which you have chaired the debate, as always.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Polish contribution to the UK war effort in World War Two.

New Covent Garden Market

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

15:56

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the redevelopment of New Covent Garden market.

As a fellow Northamptonshire MP, Mr Hollobone, you might be slightly surprised that I am interested in this subject, but I hope to enlighten you in my contribution. The first records of Covent Garden supplying food to the population of London are from around 1200. By the 1800s, the market had expanded to cover more than 30 acres, with a covered market being built in 1834. In 1887, a foreign fruit exchange opened, which handled imported produce that was distributed widely beyond the capital city. By 1890, the market had become the most important fresh produce market in the United Kingdom, but space was tight and the market became a chaotic place. According to the Covent Garden Market Authority, people were complaining about congestion.

In 1904, the Jubilee Hall was built and in 1918, the Duke of Bedford sold the market and its trading rights to a property company. By 1929, the amount of produce flowing into the market had doubled since 1910 and congestion in the market area was getting worse. That congestion problem seems to be a recurring theme.

In 1961, with no space to grow, constant traffic jams and overcrowding, the market needed to move. Accordingly, the Covent Garden Market Authority was set up to modernise the market, and it passed into public ownership. Nine Elms, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), was identified as its new home. Construction of the new market began in 1971, and in 1974 the largest wholesale fruit, vegetable and flower market in the country moved to the new site at Nine Elms, which was officially opened by Her Majesty the Queen the following year.

At about that time, a young David Heaton-Harris went about setting up his own business with the help of some Lincolnshire farmers. What4 Ltd was the family business that I eventually went on to run before entering politics. I worked nights in the wonderful New Covent Garden Market for the best part of 11 years. Back in the day—this is relevant to the debate—we tried, as tenants, to buy the market from the Government, with other tenants, but they were not keen to sell such a prized asset.

For the past 45 years, the market has supplied fresh food and flowers to London and the south of England. According to Daniel Tomkinson, the chief executive of the market authority,

“New Covent Market plays a vital role in London’s hospitality and foodservice sectors. No award ceremony or major sporting event takes place in London without the input of one of the tenants. From quality fruit to flowers and amazing veg, this iconic Market is a key part of London’s life.”

Currently, 167 businesses trade on the market, employing 2,500 people. The aggregate turnover of businesses operating in the market in 2017 was about £626 million. That is a lot of fruit and vegetables. The market is expanding, and it is no surprise that that figure is a 6% increase on the 2016 numbers, as it is feeding a growing city.

The Mayor of London updated his final London food strategy in December 2018, and specifically commented on the need for “highly efficient supply chains” for the city of London. He committed to:

“Champion business support to food entrepreneurs and start-ups, and support London’s markets to increase their supply of fresh, local and seasonal produce to meet all Londoners’ cultural needs through the London Markets Board.”

New Covent Garden Market plays a huge part in filling those requirements.

From my conversations with the Minister, I know he understands how important the continuing existence and success of New Covent Garden Market is to the food supply chain for London and the south-east, and indeed the whole of England. He knows that there is a dispute between the market authority and the tenants of the market over its redevelopment. The Covent Garden Tenants Association was incorporated in April 1922. Its members are the traders on the market, and it has represented their interests for nearly 100 years. It represented my interests when I was a tenant on the market with What4. There is now the possibility of action, based on the infringement of traders’ rights under the terms of their agreements to occupy space in the market. That could easily be substantially expanded to incorporate claims that the market authority is acting in breach of its statutory duties.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Given what my hon. Friend said about the current state of things for the tenants, I wonder whether this is an opportunity to go back and look at the idea of the tenants taking ownership of the market.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am sure the tenants would be delighted to have such an opportunity, but there would obviously have to be some sort of procurement process. That is not a possibility or a probability at this time because there are already contacts signed for the redevelopment of the market. It is a very good piece of real estate in London, where fantastic businesses are sited.

The market’s moves over the years have been driven by congestion more than almost anything else. On each occasion, the market’s success has meant that it needs more space. Ultimately, it moved to its current site because of the lack of space and because of the congestion in the area in the 1960s. Its redevelopment will mean that, for the first time in its 800-year history, in a growing market environment, its size will be reduced substantially.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I was not aware that he was a former tenant of the New Covent Garden Market. It is great that there is somebody here who has extensive knowledge and experience of this issue. He makes a really interesting point. New Covent Garden Market plays a huge role in my constituency of Battersea: it brings economic advantages to the local area and employs 2,000 people. Given that it has been growing and the income it generates has been increasing, does he agree that a new development that reduces its size is going backwards? It will not allow the market to thrive and go forward.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I agree. I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution and the way she represents the market in this place. I regularly speak to various of my old friends—I think they are friends; lots of them were customers or people I bought things from, so perhaps they are business associates—and I know that she is a very good representative of the market who talks to the tenants a great deal and represents their concerns wisely.

We are squeezing a big, successful business into a smaller space. The market had a massive footprint, and when I was trading there a lot of it was not used effectively, so it is possible to understand some sort of consolidation, but the scale we are talking about now makes that an interesting prospect. At a time when the turnover of the businesses in the market is growing, it seems odd to reduce the market’s footprint. Although the tenants are not over-happy with the overall reduction in size, they have tried their best to make it work. Various pieces of land have already been sold off, and in some instances they are sold on again. The market area is to be reduced even more. Among other changes, the temporary flower market site will be incorporated into the main site. In essence, we are squeezing a quart into a pint pot and hoping that the businesses inside the pot do not get squeezed.

Over the years, the tenants have repeatedly raised concerns through their association that the proposed end-state configuration of the market that the authority is now engaged in building will not be able to operate successfully because the proposed layout and footprint simply will not accommodate the vehicle movements needed for the market to operate effectively and efficiently. The tenants of the market are very knowledgeable—and, indeed, vocal—about how the business of the market works, and their opinions about whether what is proposed will work should carry significant weight. They have retained the services of a specialist transport consultant, who advises that there are significant failings in the transport analysis and planning undertaken by the market authority. The Minister is well aware that the market authority is a public body that has a statutory duty to provide functioning market facilities and prevent traffic congestion on the market land.

The market authority is currently redeveloping the market under a contract entered into with the developer, Vinci and St Modwen Properties, in 2015. The developer commenced the main works in October 2018. Since then, an independent logistics consultant, instructed by the tenants association, has confirmed that, as designed, the market will not be operationally viable in parking and loading/unloading terms, and will therefore constrain the businesses it contains. The market authority has allowed the developer to start the construction works, but there are problems, because the tenants say that that has happened without the authority having taken the tenants’ logistics consultant’s advice about the design, and without its waiting to see the final report prepared by Arup, a logistics consultant instructed by the developer, which confirmed that the new market, as presently designed, would not be operationally viable. Arup’s final report said that to make it viable certain measures identified in a list contained in that report would need to be adopted. I am told that Arup had been asked by the market authority to use transport data that was known to be out of date and inaccurate when assessing the viability of the options, but it still came to that quite drastic conclusion.

The market authority has power under its contract with the developer to require changes to be made to the design of the market, but it has yet to decide to follow up Arup’s advice. Instead, the developer presses on with the works as they stand. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister is comfortable with that decision. I also wonder whether the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been provided with a report from a logistics consultant—or any report—confirming that, contrary to the view of either the tenants association’s logistics consultant or Arup itself, the current design will be operationally viable. If so, would it be possible for the tenants to see it, to give them some comfort that these changes will work?

This is where my old life as a tenant of the market comes into its own, because battles over rent were legendary back in the day when I worked in the market: in April this year, the market authority sent notices to terminate the tenancies of market tenants and threatened, in a letter from its solicitors, that if tenants did not immediately agree to give up their statutory right to apply for a new tenancy and agree to vacate their units at the expiry of the notice, they would not be offered tenancy of a unit in the newly developed market and would have to depart the market instead.

[Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

It is my understanding that one of the key roles of the Covent Garden Market Authority is to nurture good relations with tenants. How do such actions nurture good relations?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I know that changes at the top of the market authority have been welcomed by the tenants, and that much better conversations are being had now than have been had for many a year, but I do not believe that this is an appropriate way for a public authority to behave.

Additionally, the new draft leases issued by the Covent Garden Market Authority are removing the rights of the wholesale tenants to operate in the critical and traditional way on the bit of the market that everybody loves so much, the buyers walk or trading floor, turning that essential space into a corridor rather than a market. I can honestly tell the Minister that removing that space will almost completely remove the heart, soul and character of the market.

In the new leases, the market authority has also changed the rent negotiation process and general service charge calculations, as it has now declared that it is in fact a commercial landlord. Those actions will inevitably result in many of the smaller companies based at the market closing as the site becomes unaffordable.

Since the whole process started, there have been vast changes in how the market operates. Goods are now mostly chilled instead of being stored at ambient temperatures, and businesses’ being able to unload big lorries, repick orders and deliver in quick time continues to reduce the number of large vehicle movements required on London’s roads. However, that makes the traffic studies more important than most people believe. There is yet to be a traffic study conducted that says the future design of this important food distribution hub for London will work; indeed, all those that have been done, or at least those that are in the public domain, say that it will not. If it does not work, the market will eventually die. All the catering outlets, restaurants and food businesses currently served by the market will not go away; they will simply be catered for by businesses that travel many more miles to get into London, further adding traffic and pollution in this great city of ours.

I do not think we can ignore the facts, stand back and allow the developer and the market authority to build a market that is functionally inoperable. Action must be taken. I hope that the Government have given due consideration to the effect on tenants, businesses and the wider economy if the market were to go into decline or fail altogether. There is no need for that to happen.

I would like to think that the Minister, whose knowledge of and commitment to solving these issues is both impressive and welcome, will continue to ask those on all sides of this debate to come together to find a mutually agreeable and workable solution—all sides meaning the market authority, the tenants, the developer and the Department itself. This needs to be sorted before millions of pounds are wasted in court and one of the most vibrant parts of London’s market culture possibly ceases to be.

16:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on securing the debate. I know him well; we have discussed the matter on several occasions, and I could not think of a better person to bring the debate to the Chamber today. I note that the local MP, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), is also here and understandably shares many of the same concerns, but I think it is fair to say that, given my hon. Friend’s time spent working at the market, his knowledge and experience are second to none here, so we are delighted that he is with us. It must have been a real privilege for him to follow in his family’s footsteps and run that business so successfully for that period of time.

My hon. Friend can be reassured that the Government are committed to ensuring that this iconic market continues to thrive at Nine Elms, both during the development and into the future. We are in absolute agreement that that means it must be a profitable market that works logistically and operates fairly and transparently for both landlord and tenants, and that we need to get on and build it at pace. I am as concerned as he is about the current situation. It is simply untenable for the market authority and the tenants to be in disagreement on such important details. I am clear that both sides should be spending whatever time it takes to resolve these issues, and quickly.

[Marsha De Cordova]

The Minister is absolutely right that the matter needs to be resolved and that we cannot continue like this. The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has already asked this, but I want to ask it again: will the Minister commit to meeting tenants and the market authority, and any other relevant persons who need to be around the table, to begin to move things forward? I know that he has already had meetings, but we need to get something nailed down to ensure that we can begin to resolve this. As he rightly points out, we must get the market to a place where it is fit for purpose, but that has to be done right.

[David Rutley]

Of course I will help to facilitate that. As I think the hon. Lady knows, we have already had a roundtable meeting, but we can have more in the future. The next step is to ensure that we have a second meeting of the experts on both sides of the debate to move things forward, but if further facilitation is required, I will do it.

My personal view is that there are enough experts on both sides of the table, both the tenants, who are formidable traders, and the market authority. We must bring the two together with their experts. If I were in charge of the situation, I would probably put the key in a very safe place and let the two sides just get on with it, because, as I will go on to say, this has gone on longer than Brexit and, as complicated as it is, it is not as complicated as that.

Hon. Members here are all speaking with a similar voice. Certainly I, as the Minister responsible for this fantastic and iconic institution, echo the sentiment that we need to get on. These are difficult issues, but they are not insurmountable. It is clear that the market is a national treasure. Anybody who is interested in food only has to go along and see this amazing institution, smell it and soak up the atmosphere, because it is unbelievable.

I am fortunate that my second job, after my newspaper round, was working in a greengrocer’s shop every day after school—except for Wednesday, which was early closing, if anybody remembers that—and then all day Saturday. I was pretty good at stacking the oranges and enjoying the seasonal smells of those russet apples—food at its best. I was fortunate enough then to go on and work in Asda, running its home shopping business, as well as doing various other things in the food sector. The market should be cherished, and anybody wanting to go along should do so at 2 o’clock in the morning, as I was fortunate enough to do myself, just to feel that buzz. There is a huge amount of experience and a wealth of knowledge there, and some fantastic activities going on. It supplies the food—the very best fruit, vegetables and cut flowers available—to London, the south-east and the country.

However, the area needs to be transformed. It has an ageing infrastructure and needs to move to a more modern and flexible place to do business, fit for the 21st century. The old business structures and facilities are 45 years old now, and although my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry looks young—sorry; perhaps I should not have said that, because he has been here a long time—even he would agree that the infrastructure needs to be improved, a bit like the facilities here in Parliament. However, the difference is that although we can decant, that is not possible for the market, given the space constraints.

There are big opportunities at the site, and we want to ensure that the market has a bright future for many generations to come. There are second and third-generation traders there, and it is part of their lives as well as their livelihoods, and we know that it is important for them to be able to carry on that important work. Refurbishing the site was looked at but did not offer good value for money, not least as the infrastructure would have to be replaced at some point in the future anyway, so there was a view that we needed to move on. The fact that the Government chose to invest in the market’s redevelopment is clear evidence of the value we place on it. A far easier option would have been simply to sell the land, but we chose not to do so because of our commitment to the market’s mission and its place in the food economy.

There are challenges for the market authority and the traders alike, and sadly it is not possible to rebuild the busiest wholesale horticultural market in the country while it continues to operate and not expect some disruption for all the players involved. That is unfortunate. It is true that the new market will occupy a smaller site when complete, as my hon. Friend highlighted. Smaller does not mean that it cannot be as profitable and effective in the future—indeed, it is vital that it is—but it does mean that it needs to change, not only in how the market is laid out but in how it operates.

I have every confidence that, working together, the market authority and the tenants can find a way to make sure that the market will thrive in its new design. This is not a question of whether it will work, but how. That means looking at both the operational design of the market and how the tenants operate within it. Between them, the market authority and the tenants—representatives of both are here today; they are outstanding people—know the market better than anyone else and must surely be best placed to solve the issue together.

None of this is insurmountable. An earlier challenge arose when the market authority, in discussion with the tenants, became concerned about how the developers would ensure that construction would not disrupt trading. It responded by stopping construction and insisting on more detailed plans from the developer to tackle this. Construction then recommenced, with work starting on the first of the main new market buildings last October.

All of this, along with some unexpected ground conditions, means that the project will take much longer than anyone envisaged or wanted—possibly up to three years longer. That is hard for the tenants, the market authority and everyone who comes to the market for business or pleasure. However, when things are tough, strong leadership is vital. In February I appointed a new chair of the market authority, and I am delighted that we have, in David Frankish, a chair who truly understands the business of the market, having built his own highly successful business in the food logistics industry. I am in regular dialogue with David and know that he shares my desire to do all that is necessary to resolve the current difficulties. Indeed, I am seeing him again in a week’s time, and we will absolutely focus on his plans to make urgent progress on these issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry made a number of specific points about logistics that I will respond to in the time available. The market authority tells me that it shared the Arup report on logistics that he referred to with the tenants association and its solicitors last November. That report was based on a comprehensive new traffic survey that Arup conducted in December 2017. Arup also installed automatic traffic counters, which are still in place, to provide an ongoing ability to monitor vehicle flows. The data is continually shared with the tenants association’s own traffic experts, and I recognise that this data is part of the ongoing discussions. I hope that is helping the situation. If it is not, clearly we need to find other ways to share the data and to make it more meaningful.

I also understand that, while the Arup report raised a number of logistical issues with the final design that needed to be addressed, it did not conclude that the new market would be unviable. The report shortlisted 12 proposals to resolve operational issues. The market authority, in discussion with the tenants, has already adopted some of those, including making changes to road layouts and adding a second exit slip road to provide better operational flexibility at peak times. The market authority advises that none of the other proposals have been dismissed; some will be implemented later on in the redevelopment, and others will need further review, depending on how the market adapts to the changes already made. Although I understand that there is work still to do, it is important to recognise that changes have been made, and that the market authority has the flexibility to continue to adapt the design as the build progresses.

My hon. Friend raised questions about the market authority’s actions as a landlord. Even he indicated that, during his time as a tenant, there were some frictions and tensions, as there often are between landlord and tenant. However, we are committed to running a market that operates as a business and is fair for both the tenants and the landlord. The market authority is a public corporation that operates as a business with a high degree of autonomy from the Government and has a statutory duty to break even. We also need to ensure that taxpayers get a fair return for the public investment in the market.

Clearly the tenant-landlord relationship is a legal one, but it is not just about following the letter of law; it is also about working fairly and transparently together. It is not possible for me to go into the detail of individual tenant’s situations today, but the market authority has sought to assure me that it has worked to move tenants on to new leases in a fair way. Indeed, it has highlighted that, as part of the move, it has offered a landlord compensation package over and above any statutory compensation due, amounting to an equivalent of between three and half and four years’ rent at current levels.

I do not underestimate the complexity of the issues here and the strain that the current situation is putting on relationships. The stakes are high and the frustration is all too evident—again, it sounds a bit like Brexit. I am as disappointed as anyone that the market authority and the tenants have so far failed to reach a shared understanding of how the new market will operate successfully, but surely legal action is not the way to get there. I utterly agree that is a waste of everybody’s time, energy and money—except the lawyers’. I know that my hon. Friend does not want their pockets further lined.

I firmly believe that sitting down together and working through the issues is the only way to find solutions, avoid legal disputes and move on, and there needs to be more of it—more sitting down together, more listening, more communicating, more understanding and absolutely more pace. I am sure that every challenge that this project presents can be overcome by continuous, open and respectful communication and a sincere approach to collaborative working. I am fully committed to helping to make that happen in any way I can, to reiterate the point I made to the hon. Member for Battersea.

The next meeting with traffic experts is planned for 10 July, and DEFRA officials will absolutely be there. I urge both sides to use that meeting to make real progress. They should use the whole day or the rest of the week if needs be—whatever time it takes—but they should not leave that room until they have found ways to move things forward.

We have serious players on both sides, and we all—the market authority, the tenants and absolutely all across Government—want the same thing: a thriving market now and into the future, where logistics work smoothly and both tenants and landlord work together fairly and transparently to create a profitable market where these vital businesses can grow. The best way to secure that is through working constructively together. I know that that is the call that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry wants to hear, and I think that all of us in the House feel that, so let us get on with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Rural Areas in Scotland: Additional Delivery Charges

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Westminster Hall

16:29

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered additional delivery charges in rural areas in Scotland.

In the time-honoured phrase, Mr Hollobone, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This is a huge issue for my constituents and many others living in remote parts of Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. It has been around for a long time and, despite the best of intentions and sympathetic hearings in the past, it is hard for me, as a constituency MP, to see light at the end of the tunnel.

Let me set the scene, which I am sure will be familiar to hon. Members, by giving two examples. First, I will quote Mr Charles Macfarlane living in Shinness near Lairg in Sutherland, who gave written evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. He referred to

“the behaviour of businesses, most particularly couriers, in either refusing to deliver to the Highlands and Islands, or else doing so charging rates so grossly inflated as to be completely unrealistic.”

He gave two examples. The first was that delivery for an eBay item costing £10 would cost £4.80 if delivery was in the UK, but when the business hears that it is for the postcode IV27 in Sutherland, the cost goes up to £15.47. Mr Macfarlane also quoted, rather charmingly, the cost of four chair castors being delivered. The cost was £11.41 to buy the four chair castors, and the cost of UK delivery was £6, but when the business heard that it was to the highlands of Scotland, the cost went up to £15. As Mr Macfarlane says,

“click ‘Buy’ on a product on the web, put in a Highland postcode, and at a guess about 75% of the time a significant delivery surcharge will be applied, very often even when the product was advertised as ‘free UK delivery’…Then, to add injury to insult, the overcharged service from such couriers is slow and unreliable—often two or three times slower than sending it by second class post, and during this time the product may have been jolting around the Highlands in a van for up to a week before finally being delivered—I’ve had a computer hard drive be Dead On Arrival as a result, and had to wait a further time for it to be returned and replaced.”

Considering the number of emails and letters that I have received about this issue since being elected as an MP, I could fill up the entirety of my allotted time quoting, but I shall give just one more example, which particularly stands out to me. A constituent has written to me about ordering a sheet of perspex from a London company. My constituent says:

“They wanted £16 for delivery, until I told them the postcode, when the charge was revised to £212.”

That absolutely stopped me in my tracks.

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I know that this issue affects his constituency more than that of most of us here. The Scottish Affairs Committee looked at the issue in, I think, December 2017 and we found lots of examples of just what he has been referring to, including people placing orders and then being contacted after the fact, when the order had already been accepted, to be asked to pay an exorbitant delivery charge. Do we not have to address the issue so that when people go online to buy a product, the delivery charge is there for all to see, and the website does not say “Free mainland delivery” if that is not the case?

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I want to take this opportunity to thank all hon. Members from both sides of the House who take this issue seriously. The fact that it is taken seriously means a lot to my constituents.

Surely, if a consumer sees delivery advertised as to the “UK”, it should be to the UK. Surely these companies are failing to realise that the highlands are every bit as much part of the UK as Wales or Yorkshire. It could be suggested that delivery to the highlands might be cheaper were the goods going only as far as Inverness, at which point the buyer could drive down to get them, but when we consider that for many of my constituents the return journey to and from Inverness is 200 miles and we think about the cost of petrol and the wear and tear on the vehicle, we see that these extra costs are most unwelcome.

I want to touch on Amazon, because there is a worrying new development. In the past, Amazon has, very honourably, had most of its retailers advertise a set rate for delivery to all parts of the UK, and it had a good reputation for that. However, Amazon has recently suggested intentions to move away from standard charges and allow marketplace sellers to surcharge for the first time. That would be seriously bad news and yet another financial burden on my constituents.

As I said at the outset, this issue has been around for a long time. Many of my constituents say to me that the charges are nothing more than a geography tax—one that they can ill afford. Living in my remote part of the UK already entails a high cost of living that simply cannot be avoided. I am sure that everyone has heard now and again that Altnaharra, in the middle of Sutherland, is the coldest place in the UK. There is, in particular, the cost of winter heating, while the cost of the distance of unavoidable transport is a burden on families, and sadly the prices in our national supermarkets are often slightly higher in my constituency than they would be in other parts of the UK. Of course, the latter point will have to wait for another day, because supermarket pricing per se is a separate issue and nothing to do with delivery charges.

The lion’s share of my contributions in this Chamber and the main Chamber during my two years in this place have been about sustaining local people in local jobs and local enterprises. As hon. Members will know only too well—and as will anyone who has studied Scottish history—depopulation has been the curse of the highlands for hundreds of years. If we want to enable people to live and prosper in the highlands, we have to ensure that the economic climate in which they live is on the same level playing field as other parts of the UK. What we know about delivery charges means that that is not at all the case. To put it simply, people on basic incomes are having to pay far more for many consumer items than their friends and relations have to in Glasgow, Birmingham or London. That is not fair and it means a stark warning for us this afternoon. I will put it this way: if this inequality is not addressed, many local people might simply decide that life to the south would be a lot easier and move away. It would be a tragedy to return to the bad old times of the past. Those empty schools are a sight that none of us wants to see again.

There is a good historical example. When the penny post was introduced in 1839, it was based on the fundamental principle that a letter or parcel would cost the same to be delivered to an address in, say, Ealing or Westminster, or Wick or Durness in Caithness and Sutherland. That is why the Post Office and the Royal Mail are so dear to our hearts and why this is as popular an institution today as it ever was. It was seen to be fair, and that was seen to be good. I put it to hon. Members that today, alas, we have moved rather far from that early 19th-century concept of what was basically a right of ordinary people.

If people read, as I am sure the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) has, today’s edition of the Aberdeen Press and Journal, they will see my erstwhile colleague and former member of the Scottish Government, Mr Richard Lochhead, talking about this issue. In particular, he mentions something called consumeradvice.scot, an initiative launched a couple of months ago. It offers free advice on delivery law and urges shoppers to report misleading practices, and it tells companies what would be best practice for them. I applaud Mr Lochhead. He speaks of “rip-off” delivery charges and I commend his words.

However, there is a hitch, and that is really why I am making this speech. The Scottish Government are indeed to be praised for grasping the issue, and so too is the Highland Council, which I am bound to mention—I was a member until two years ago. The Highland Council certainly understands the issue of delivery charges in the highlands. However, the awkward truth remains that although there is a mechanism whereby complaints are logged and best practice is suggested to retail companies, there is no power, with teeth, to change the way that the companies operate. That, for all the best intentions of the Scottish Government, the Highland Council and others, means that we are not going to get to the nub of the problem.

It is my deeply held belief that with this Government or, indeed, a future Government, we do not know what is ahead of us; we are peering into a dark glass at the moment. I think that all of us, on both sides of the Chamber of the House of Commons, would agree with that, but I do think that the Government in the future, whoever they may be, would do well to look at putting in place proper legislation to bring the system into some sort of order whereby fairness is built in for people.

I am bound to put it on the record also that members of the UK Government and this Minister herself have given me a sympathetic hearing in the past and that that is appreciated. There is food for thought here, and if we could come to a constructive dialogue about how we could put in place some sort of legislation, that would be helpful.

There is a second and final warning—I think I have taken up my allotted time. If we fail to tackle this issue, which makes my constituents and many others living in remote parts of Scotland and elsewhere in the UK slightly second-class citizens, we will be failing them. There is an example from history. In the 1960s, the then Labour Government recognised the needs of the highlands and islands, recognised that the highlands and islands, in the phrase of the time, were on the UK’s conscience, and took the bold step of establishing the Highlands and Islands Development Board. That altruistic move brought great good to the highlands and islands. It was very much to the credit of that Government. I very much hope that a similar generosity of spirit and attention will be taken up by the leaders of our nation today and tomorrow. We have waited a very long time for real action. If something can be done and serious consideration given to this issue, on a personal level that would mean a great deal to my constituents.

16:40

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I give my genuine and heartfelt thanks to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this debate. I am both delighted and frustrated that we are here again to debate this matter—delighted because a Minister will respond to the concerns of MPs representing their constituencies across much of the north of Scotland, and frustrated because it is not the first time the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue, nor is it the first time I have raised it.

Since mentioning this matter in my maiden speech two years ago, I have mentioned it at Prime Minister’s questions, held a 90-minute Westminster Hall debate, raised it at Business questions and suggested that the Scottish Affairs Committee hold an inquiry into it, which it did. This matter has been raised many times, on the Floor of the House, in Westminster Hall and in our Committee Rooms. I have also met with the Minister a number of times to discuss this matter.

The issue of excessive and rip-off delivery charges affects not just the highlands of Scotland, but the whole of my Moray constituency. It is absolutely incredible that in 2019—in this day and age—couriers and companies still say that Moray and the highlands are not part of mainland United Kingdom. I do not know how many times we have to say this to get the message through, but they seem blind to the fact that Moray, the highlands, the north-east and other parts of Scotland are part of the mainland United Kingdom. One does not need to take a plane to get to Elgin or Caithness; it is all joined together as part of mainland UK and it should be treated the same.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

At this point I want to congratulate the postmen and parcel people who work for Royal Mail and deliver six days a week to all areas, in all kinds of weather. All we are asking for in Royal Mail is a level playing field. Some of these couriers are charging ridiculous prices. We can do it; all we ask for is a level playing field for everyone. I congratulate all the postmen who do their work there.

[Douglas Ross]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman might need to correct the record. As a former postman, he should have declared his interest to the House. He is clearly still a part of that, as twice in a short intervention he said “we”. I say that in jest, because he brings great experience as a postman from before he was elected to this place. It is useful to have his contribution, because those workers undoubtedly do a service. However, we are really challenging the couriers’ add-on prices, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross set out clearly in his opening remarks. Someone might go online, view a product, decide that they want it and agree the price, only to find an additional cost on top of that simply because the company believes that they live too far away to deliver the product easily.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

As a fellow Member of Parliament for the north-east of Scotland, I thank our friend, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for raising this important issue. I share my hon. Friend’s frustration at having to bring this issue up again. On the point that he has just made, I wonder whether he has had the same experience that I and others have had at the final check- out point online. I was ordering a sofa, which happened to be for my flat in London, but at the last minute the website said, “Not available for delivery in Scotland”—nowhere in Scotland, never mind AB or IV postcodes. I nearly refused to order it on principle, but I needed a sofa. There are great frustrations with getting deliveries to the north of Scotland, for example to Moray. I received an email last week from a constituent with a business in Peterhead, in my constituency. He was concerned that deliveries are going to Elgin and Aberdeen, but they are missing out what seems to be thought of as the extreme north-east corner.

[Douglas Ross]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. He did not cancel his sofa on principle, but if he ever invites me round to his flat, I will not sit on the sofa on principle, such is the extent to which—

[David Duguid]

It was a sofa bed.

[Douglas Ross]

That is even worse! In all seriousness, my hon. Friend raises a valid point. He can get something delivered to London, but not to his constituency of Banff and Buchan. I will mention some examples that have been raised with me since I last held a debate on this matter, because there are some anomalies with the practice that these companies use. It is frustrating that the charge is added on at the end of the purchase.

I want to give a couple of examples. The first one was really remarkable. A constituent of mine in Fochabers went online and found the product they wanted. Their postcode for Fochabers in Moray is IV, like the rest of the highlands. When they put their postcode in, they immediately incurred a greater charge. He phoned up the company, which said, “We put this charge on all IV postcodes, but not AB postcodes.” My constituent happens to have another address in Clochan, which is three or four miles from Fochabers, but has an AB postcode. When he put in that address, there was no delivery charge.

What makes this even more remarkable is that the product was delivered by Parcelforce from its depot in Inverness, and to get from Inverness to Clochan, one has to go through Fochabers, to go further down the road to Clochan. There my constituent had free delivery, but had he wanted the product delivered closer to the Parcelforce depot, he would be charged extra simply because of his postcode. Not only do the couriers not understand that Moray and the highlands are part of mainland Scotland; they do not even understand the local geography and will deliver something further away at no cost, as compared with delivering something to a different postcode.

A constituent has emailed me another example, which I have written to the Advertising Standards Authority about. This constituent is a charity fundraiser. She wanted to purchase five tins to collect money for her charity. The tins cost £2.98 each. She was happy with that price and was going to purchase them for the charity. However, there was a £10.50 charge to deliver those five tins, because the charity, Outfit Moray, is based in Moray and has an IV postcode for its headquarters in Lossiemouth. The price to deliver the product was equivalent to the cost of three and half charity tins. It is simply wrong that charities, individuals, consumers and constituents are being punished in this way.

I want to give some examples of action taken in response to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and other Members from all parties having raised this matter. Every time I get a case regarding this—I get many—I write to the Minister, with whom I am in regular correspondence, and I write to the Advertising Standards Authority, because it is wrong and unacceptable that the charge is added only after the purchase is made.

I have had two examples in the last couple of months where the Advertising Standards Authority has written back to say that it agrees. The first case involved chums.co.uk, which said it was offering free standard UK delivery for orders over £50. However, when the ASA received my complaint it investigated and agreed that IV postcodes appear to be charged a delivery fee. As well as that, “The delivery information section of the website states that there is a standard postage fee for the UK mainland and that is clearly not the case.” The ASA continues: “The delivery information on the company’s website looks like it is misleading and our compliance team are taking action by sending an enforcement notice.” Another case came up last month, this time involving amenity.co.uk. The ASA said that it agreed there was a problem with its delivery claims, and it too will be sent an enforcement notice.

I use those examples not because I condone what was happening, but to show what happens when we raise the matter and get in touch with the companies—I always write to the company and say that I am reporting it to the Advertising Standards Authority. It is encouraging that the ASA is now taking enforcement action to deal with this. However, we are only picking at the surface. Of all the constituents who contact me and those in the hon. Gentleman’s geographically vast constituency, which is punished in the same way as Moray, many will just give up, move on and buy something elsewhere. They should not be forced to do that. They should be able to purchase a product that anyone else in Scotland or across the UK could purchase for the same delivery price.

[Jamie Stone]

May I start my intervention with an anecdote? Many years ago, a letter from the United States of America arrived in my home town, addressed to “The representative of the Lord Jesus Christ, Tain”, and some wag in the post office wrote “Try Jamie Stone” on it.

The point about delivery companies is that they do not always leave the parcel where they should. I have heard too many examples of old ladies finding their parcel months later in the garden shed or some other completely inappropriate place.

[Douglas Ross]

As the Leader of the House sometimes says at business questions, that is an excellent topic for an Adjournment debate. The hon. Gentleman rightly raises an important issue that we could debate for many hours and links it to the important issue of excessive, rip-off delivery charges.

I support the hon. Gentleman’s efforts to support what MPs across the parties are trying to do on the issue. Considerable work has been done in the Scottish Parliament, both by the Scottish Government and on a cross-party basis. The Scottish Government have launched an excessive parcel delivery charges map, and they want constituents to contact their MSPs so that they can put their information on it—they say that that will highlight where the problem exists. However, although there are some examples outwith the north-east of Scotland, the highlands and islands, and Moray, I think that we can comfortably say that those are the areas most affected. I am sure that the map will tell us what we already know, but what we need is solutions.

It is right that the Advertising Standards Authority should take action when cases are raised, but we need it to be proactive rather than reactive. I am pleased to have been invited to join a new body that it has set up for MPs to work with it on the issue. Ultimately, we have to get a simple message across to the companies and the couriers. First, it is not acceptable for the companies to say, “That is a charge that our courier puts on.” They should change their courier. If a courier cannot tell the difference between mainland UK and the islands, or if it thinks that Moray and the highlands are an island, it does not deserve to be a courier. Secondly, the couriers need to wise up. Inflicting these charges on people in Moray, in the highlands and across the north-east of Scotland is unacceptable, inappropriate and damaging to their reputations and to the reputations of the companies that they pretend to serve.

I know that the Minister takes the issue seriously. She has met me and we have done some good work on the issue, but we need to do more. It is unacceptable that this practice continues in this day and age—we need to stop it once and for all.

16:49

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate. I am delighted to participate in it, although I wish it were not necessary, because it has a pressing relevance not just to people in the north-east, but to my constituents—particularly those who have the great pleasure of living on the islands of Arran and Cumbrae. Like a million other consumers across Scotland, they face the challenges of coping with unfair delivery surcharges and late deliveries, or are even excluded from delivery services altogether when shopping online.

We must be under no illusion, because this is more than an inconvenience; it has a genuinely negative impact on rural businesses as well as consumers. Citizens Advice research tells us that the UK parcels market has grown by more than 50% since 2010, and much of that growth has been driven by parcels sent to consumers who shop online. The Scottish Parliament information centre has costed additional parcel delivery surcharges for Scottish consumers, in comparison with the rest of the UK, at approximately £38 million per year, which is completely unacceptable. A shocking £11.4 million of that is spent by consumers over the Christmas period, simply because of where they live.

Despite a fair delivery charges campaign, the figures are rising, and at a time when more and more of us are shopping online, for a variety of reasons. That is self-evidently and necessarily the case for those who live in rural areas. Some of us pay what can only be described as a postcode tax, which is often imposed randomly by some retailers, although not all. Such charges are discriminatory and hit consumers and rural businesses in fragile areas very hard indeed. The problem is deeply concerning for my constituents and other rural constituents. The penalising of the delivery of goods bought online and the consumer exclusion are such that 10.9% of retailers exclude some Scottish islands from a delivery service altogether.

The statement of principles on parcel deliveries has had little effect on the problem. The UK statement of principles is designed to assist retailers in their policies on the delivery of goods purchased over the internet by individual consumers. It sets out best practice principles for how retailers can ensure that their delivery services meet the needs of consumers. The UK-wide statement of principles builds on the Scottish guidelines that were launched in November 2013. The principles have arisen following agreement between representatives of the UK and Scottish Governments, online retailers, parcel delivery operators and consumer organisations. The logic is that having companies follow the course of actions outlined in the principles is helpful in ensuring that the UK parcels delivery market works in the interests of consumers and businesses. However, the last time I checked—perhaps the Minister has more recent figures—only four out of 449 businesses had even heard of the principles.

There is no doubt that the UK Government need to use the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to support education for businesses about the requirements under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. There also needs to be support for education for consumers about the information that they should be provided with and the minimum standards defined in the regulations. The principles were designed to secure a better, fairer deal for consumers in our rural areas, but not enough work has been done to increase delivery operator and retailer buy-in to the principles with a plan of action to promote the scheme.

There is no doubt that the Scottish Government’s road equivalent tariff ferry fare structure should have helped to reduce the costs of delivering goods to islands such as Arran and Cumbrae, but I am afraid that the reductions seem not to have been passed on to consumers. More work must be undertaken with delivery operators for our rural and island consumers across Scotland. We need to ensure that customers on islands and in rural areas can access a full range of delivery options to their local post office, local shop or any other place that is convenient to them and may reduce costs.

The Scottish Government have done all they can about the issue with the very limited powers they have, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross pointed out, but not a great deal has changed in reality. The Scottish Government have unveiled the “Fairer Deliveries For All” plan to protect rural consumers and businesses and empower online shoppers to recognise and act on unfair and misleading delivery costs. The Scottish Government’s work on a voluntary code is also important, but the real power to put the matter right lies with the UK Government, who need to act. Our rural consumers and businesses need them to use their powers to regulate and do the right thing, so that they can access a fair deal.

I want a better deal for my island constituents on Arran and Cumbrae, and for rural constituents across Scotland and the UK. That is why I support a people’s delivery guarantee to pull together all aspects of delivery charges and guarantees, and to ensure that consumers are getting the fair deal that they deserve—not being misled by claims that delivery will be free, only to be told during or after purchase that that is not the case. The Minister may tell us that the Advertising Standards Authority launched a crackdown last year on misleading claims about rural delivery charges to consumers, but that has not really delivered the change that rural communities need.

[Douglas Ross]

I understand the hon. Lady’s argument and her point that more could be done, but I have given concrete examples of the ASA taking action. We should at least recognise that companies are now receiving enforcement notices, which was not happening in recent months and years.

[Patricia Gibson]

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that the Advertising Standards Authority has been launching initiatives to crack down on such practices, but my point is that the kind of real change that he and I hope for has not come about.

A million consumers in rural Scotland face punitive surcharges. That has to stop. There needs to be better and greater dialogue between the UK Government and the delivery operators. The UK Government can and should regulate charges. Concrete and decisive action is needed to ensure that consumers in large areas of Scotland do not face higher delivery charges or even have their orders refused.

I first spoke out on this issue four years ago, weeks after first being elected as an MP, and in that time I have seen the Scottish Government do what they can to improve a bad situation over which they have no real power. This Parliament and this Government have the power to deliver the fairness and the inclusion that is needed. I urge the Minister to use her good offices to deliver change at long last. For the most part, self-regulation has failed. I really hope that we will not still be debating this injustice four years from now. We know what the issue is and we know that it can be remedied, so I hope that we can stop endlessly debating it and instead act. It really is time that my constituents on Arran and Cumbrae, and rural consumers right across Scotland and the UK, are no longer disadvantaged by this postcode tax.

16:59

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this important debate. I recall his excellent contribution in a debate on broadly similar themes that was secured by the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) around 18 months ago.

However, it is disappointing to see that there has been so little progress in tackling this unfairness since that previous debate. The Minister responsible at the time, the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), assured us that the consumer Green Paper would be the start of the process of finding an answer, but the Green Paper did not mention the issue at all. We are still awaiting the response to the Green Paper consultation, and by later this week we will have been waiting for one year. Can the Minister here today say when we can expect the response?

It has been valuable today to learn about not only the problems that consumers continue to face, but the actions that have been taken since the previous debate. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has already referred to the Scottish Parliament’s actions, and hopefully there will soon be some clarity on many of these issues, including misleading delivery charges. However, I take on board both his comments and those of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who also issued a plea to the UK Government to assist them in this matter, because it is Government action that is needed. I was interested to hear the hon. Lady talk about the people’s delivery guarantee, which I think is an excellent idea. I hope that the Minister will take that up and tell us more about it later. There should be more work with delivery companies, and more information and reporting, but those things are useful only up to a point. The evidence that we have heard today has shown that the core problem—the hugely inflated delivery prices that many people face—still exists.

The universal service obligation ensures that firms that use the Royal Mail for deliveries are able to charge precisely the same amount for the highlands as for any other UK address. Regrettably, however, many UK online retailers have moved away from using the Royal Mail. The Government must consider how, in the deregulated postal market, the universal service obligation protects consumers in rural Scotland. Will the Minister examine and assess the effectiveness of the universal service when it comes to protecting rural customers?

The Postal Services Act 2011 sets out the universal service obligation as a service that must simply be available, rather than guaranteeing a consumer the right to access a universal service when a third party, such as an online retailer, is contracting the delivery. The obligation means that for anyone sending post below 20 kg, there is a fixed price to any UK address. That is all well and good in protecting citizens’ rights when people send items themselves, but the majority of online deliveries are by retailers that operate across the UK.

A retailer’s commercial motive will lead it towards wanting to offer incredibly cheap or free delivery to the majority of its customers. In recent years we have seen nearly every online retailer splash an offer of free delivery on their homepage. In fact, led by Amazon, same-day delivery is being pushed as the new ultimate convenience. However, Members will know that not only is that promise rarely universally available, but the desire of online sites to offer delivery leads them to move away from the somewhat higher price of the universal service offered by Royal Mail and towards competitors who can offer cheaper services. Clearly, that is at the cost of consumers in the highlands and islands, who have to pay the exorbitant rates that we have heard about today.

In the previous debate, I said that Ofcom needs to be empowered to take action to ensure that this geographic discrimination is tackled. The then Minister disagreed, on the basis that some delivery firms do not charge additional rates in Scotland. That is true, and I encourage all retailers to choose one of these firms to deliver their goods, if they do not use Royal Mail. However, the Government’s position completely misses the point that consumer choice should naturally be about choosing the best quality and value products. Other than by using a few select retailers, consumers cannot choose to go with Royal Mail as an option, so in this environment a universal service does not really exist.

Ofcom continues to report a fall in the cost of parcel postage, due to increased competition. That is good news for the majority of UK consumers, but with margins becoming tighter it represents quite the opposite for consumers in rural locations, as it makes it increasingly unlikely that the highlands and islands will be included at equal rates. I fear that without genuine action the outlook for many Scottish families is bleak. The market is moving at pace towards a low-cost convenience model, and it is difficult to imagine that rural Scotland will be a beneficiary of the change.

It is clear that there is a market failure that must be corrected. I believe that Ofcom can make that correction, if it is correctly instructed. There are two approaches that the Government should consider. First, when there is an option to select Royal Mail delivery, there is a degree of protection available to consumers. The Government should consider how they can ensure that as large a part of the delivery market as possible has an option for Royal Mail delivery, either by a voluntary agreement or, if necessary, by regulation.

Secondly, Ofcom could add geographic delivery to its list of regulated prices. That could certainly curb the worst examples of overcharging faced by rural Scottish communities. Ofcom has used its regulatory powers to cap broadband and phone prices. Therefore, given the evidence of overcharging for delivery, it is logical to cap parcel delivery costs too.

In conclusion, will the Minister recognise that the Government must move beyond guidance and warm words, and instead take real action to ensure that hundreds of thousands of people do not continue to suffer this unfair penalty?

17:06

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this important debate on an issue that continues to be important for his constituents and those of other Members. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and the passion with which they represent consumers in their communities.

As the hon. Gentleman will remember, we met last November to discuss his concerns about this issue and we have since corresponded, including my recent responses to the parliamentary questions that he has tabled. I understand the concerns that he and others who are here today have raised that consumers in some parts of Scotland are being charged more for delivery than those in other parts of the UK. I also recognise that similar issues exist for consumers in Northern Ireland.

I am pleased to take part in the debate and to outline the progress that has been made since this issue was last debated in Westminster Hall in a debate responded to by a previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), back in December 2017. The Government are committed to promoting growth in the UK economy. The growth in online shopping is increasingly important in achieving that and it is of particular importance to rural communities, where access to physical retail outlets is limited. As hon. Members have said, it is crucial that retailers are up front about their delivery charges, including where they deliver to, what they charge and when premiums apply. Consumers will then know where they stand and can make an informed decision before they purchase. That is what the law requires.

The Government strongly encourage businesses to provide consumers, as far as possible, with a range of affordable delivery options. To help to achieve that, the Government have ensured that everybody, including retailers, has access to an affordable postal service for deliveries across the UK under the universal service obligation, which has been mentioned in the debate. Through the universal service obligation, Royal Mail delivers parcels up to 20 kg, five days a week, at uniform rates throughout the UK. Let me make it clear that it is up to businesses themselves to determine the most appropriate delivery option for the consumers of their products. There are no rules to prevent differential charging between businesses for deliveries, and I do not believe that, for example, imposing a price cap is a practical answer. We should not seek to force retailers to use a specific supplier, such as Royal Mail, because competition in the delivery market is an important driver of efficiency. A competitive market should be a sufficient incentive to put pressure on charges applied by retailers and delivery operators.

There are positive signs that things are changing and businesses are listening. Wayfair took the decision earlier this year to scrap delivery charges for orders over £40 to anywhere in the UK and to charge a standard rate of £4.99 for orders below that threshold. That type of commercial decision will set the company apart from its competitors, drive competition and lead to lower costs. On the delivery side, Menzies Parcels launched a highland parcels service last year, which enables delivery to a virtual address for onward delivery at a fixed price.

Provided that consumers have the information they need at the point of purchase and the ability to shop around, shopping around is effective. Research from December 2017 shows that 59% of those faced with a surcharge often, or always, find the item elsewhere online. However, I can reassure hon. Members that the Government are not complacent. The Consumer Protection Partnership, chaired by my officials in the Department, has recognised the issue as a priority that needs to be addressed.

As hon. Members know, the CPP has been looking over the past year to improve online retailers’ compliance with consumer protection law and considering concerns raised about the level and fairness of parcel surcharging. Its work has involved partners including Citizens Advice Scotland, the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, the Advertising Standards Authority, and the Competition and Markets Authority. The partners have been working with both the parcel and retail industries and other external organisations, including Ofcom. The work has included liaising with bodies representing both operators and retailers to try to understand the pricing models and structures that influence pricing decisions. The aim is to help industry—both parcel operators and retailers—to find a solution that works for all parties, including consumers.

We have also been liaising with officials in the Scottish Government, who launched a fair delivery action plan last November that maps both delivery hotspots in Scotland and what might constitute a fair charge. The CPP work will be informed by the outcomes and conclusions of that action. The CPP also worked with highland trading standards, the Citizens Advice consumer service and Advice Direct Scotland to launch the delivery law portal last year, which will gather information about delivery charges and parcel surcharging to inform the work and support enforcement. In the past year, the portal has received up to 1,000 hits per day. Referring potential breaches and unfair practices to the site will help enforcement agencies to ensure that retailers meet their legal obligations.

Significant work has been undertaken by the ASA and the CMA to ensure that businesses comply with the legislation, and both have acted swiftly where that has not happened. The ASA, which is responsible for ensuring compliance with the British code of advertising, sales promotion and direct marketing, has issued more than 200 enforcement notices to online retailers regarding their parcel surcharging practices and has achieved a compliance rate of more than 95%.

The CMA has issued a number of advisory notices to major retail platforms and, as a result, eBay and Amazon have reviewed and improved their policies and guidance for retailers who sell via their platforms. However, on the back of this debate, and the intelligence mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross that suggests that Amazon may be taking a retrograde step in what it allows its online retailers to do with delivery charges, I would be happy to raise the matter directly with Amazon. I would be very grateful for any information that could be provided to me as the Minister, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue.

I reiterate that the advisory notices are making companies such as eBay and other online platforms look at their practices and review them. The CMA continues to work through primary authorities to ensure continued improvement in this area. On the legal compliance side, significant progress has been made and our enforcement partners will continue to monitor and take action where necessary.

I want to touch on a few of the issues hon. Members have raised, beginning with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. He is right to highlight that we expect more of our online retailers and that they should be up front and transparent with their consumers. Applying large surcharges after a purchase has taken place is therefore something we take seriously on the enforcement side. I concur with what my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) said about when he has had issues and has been able to get the ASA involved to carry out enforcement. That is highlighted by the number of enforcement notices the ASA has levied over the past year.

I highlight again that the CMA has issued, and will continue to issue, advisory notices where it sees fit. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray was absolutely right to raise a concern about postcodes. Such issues need to be raised directly with retailers. I co-chair the Retail Sector Council with Richard Pennycook and, although this is not a workstream within the council, I commit here today to mention it at the next meeting as an issue that particularly affects Scottish consumers. At least then we can ensure that from a knowledge and a lobbying point of view those retailers understand that there are problems for their Scottish customers.

Companies are missing out on business when they choose to employ couriers that charge large surcharges for deliveries into the highlands. If the information is transparent, the consumer has the opportunity to shop around, and we have seen from research that 60% of consumers will do that and will find a cheaper price or a different supplier. Retailers need to understand that they are potentially missing out on a very valuable market by being restrictive with the Scottish market. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) is absolutely right about Scottish consumers. The evidence suggests that people in Scotland pay 30% more for their deliveries, and in the highlands the figure can go up to 50%. That is why the CPP’s work has yet to be finished; we are still monitoring the matter and will continue to engage with the industry and retailers.

I am not sure whether I have stood with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) and spoken about Scottish surcharges, but we have spoken about most things consumer. She is absolutely right to challenge me on when the potential White Paper will be launched. I can assure her that I have been particularly interested in and working on the enforcement side and, although I cannot guarantee a date today, we hope to introduce it as soon as possible. She is right to highlight the beauty of our universal service, which offers 20 kg at a fixed price to anywhere in the UK, and it is a shame that some retailers have moved away from using it.

We can never forget that the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), who is no longer in his place, is a postman. Every opportunity he gets, he bangs the drum on behalf of Royal Mail, our posties and the great service they provide. It is correct that businesses can choose to use different couriers. Some businesses will argue that in certain cases, further costs are incurred for delivering within Scotland and the highlands, which need to be passed on to the consumer. However, we are committed to continue working on that.

[Douglas Ross]

On the point that the Minister has made about further costs sometimes being involved, I take her back to my example, in which companies are not looking at the costs involved; they are simply looking at a postcode. In Moray, when they deliver further because the address has a different postcode, some companies charge no more for delivery than they do for an address that is closer to the depot. If companies were looking at it strategically, based on their costs, I could maybe understand it, but they are not; they are taking a blanket approach for any IV postcodes, and that is not right.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I agree; my hon. Friend has highlighted a particular example. Since he has been elected, he has spoken with me many times, and he is known as a champion in this area. He has been pushing me as much as any constituency MP to take action. He has raised the issue of postcodes with me, and he is right that in that particular circumstance, there seems to be an absolute unfairness for the Scottish consumer. That is why one of the most important things is that we are working with couriers and highlighting the unfairness of that example.

We are putting pressure on businesses to make sure that when they instruct a courier with a contract, they do so with the best interests of their Scottish and Northern Irish consumers at heart. In some cases, we are talking about large retailers that have buying power, and they have the ability to go into negotiation with those couriers and negotiate better prices and services. I am particularly concerned about the small online retailers that do not have buying power with the couriers and, because of the number of parcels they send out in a day, cannot negotiate with them to perhaps get those surcharges reduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray is absolutely right: we need to continue to move forward and get more transparency.

I welcome the work that the Scottish Government have been doing on this, because they are close to this area. We in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the CPP will keep engaged with the Scottish Government, and a lot of their work and its results will inform what we are doing with the CPP. I understand hon. Members’ frustration about what they perceive as a lack of progress, but I believe we have made progress, although it may not have been along the lines they would have liked to see. We have taken enforcement action; we are looking at this area, and it is being monitored. It is also right that we continue to do our best to make retailers consider their consumers who are being disadvantaged, because in not being able to supply products to those Scottish consumers, those retailers are ultimately the ones that are missing out. I congratulate the CPP on its work to ensure that when consumers purchase goods online, information is up front and transparent, and to take action swiftly when that is not the case.

Although there might be no quick fix on this issue, and although I am unconvinced at this moment about the need for further legislation, that does not mean that the issue is being ignored. I look forward to hearing about further progress through the CPP’s work and the Scottish Government’s initiatives. I am happy to update Members about progress as that work continues, and I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross for having secured the debate.

I understand the concerns of Members. After the next meeting of the Retail Sector Council, I commit that I will write to Members present today to outline what I was able to raise there. This is about a two-pronged attack: dealing with the couriers, but also making the retailers recognise that their decision making has an impact on consumers in Scotland and Northern Ireland. As the consumer Minister, I of course want there to be fairness and transparency for consumers throughout the United Kingdom, including those in the Scottish highlands and mainland Scotland.

17:24

[Jamie Stone]

It falls to me to thank each and every one of the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. In contrast to Westminster 25 or 30 years ago, a lot of people these days watch these events, thanks to the internet and the televising of Parliament. I know my constituents will be pleased that such thought has been given to an issue that matters greatly to them.

Secondly, I will spare the blushes of the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney)—who is no longer with us—but it is true that the Royal Mail is held in very high esteem. If we look at the level of esteem of various professions, I am afraid that postmen and postladies are held in much higher esteem than politicians.

The answer, when we reach it, has to be thorough and to work for consumers, and I very much hope that it will involve the Royal Mail. I do not want to over-dramatise the issue, because using language that is too strong will not help the cause. The Minister has taken on board the points made, and I am grateful for that. In brief, it seems to me that it would be a terrible thing if the sheer cost of living for people who live in remote straths and glens in the highlands led to their considering moving away. People moving south was the old curse of the highlands, so I hope we will never see that day. When the public good is in all of our hearts, I am sure we can avoid that situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered additional delivery charges in rural areas in Scotland.

17:25

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Written Statements

Tuesday 2 July 2019

Green Finance Strategy

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Written Statements

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)]

Today the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), and I are publishing the UK Government’s first Green Finance Strategy. The UK has a proud record in tackling climate change and protecting the environment We were the first country in the world to set long-term, legally binding emissions reduction targets, through the Climate Change Act 2008. We have led the G20 in decarbonising our economy. Through our 25-year environment plan, we are delivering our commitment to leave the environment in better condition than we found it. And only last week we became the first major economy in the world to legislate for a net zero greenhouse gas emissions target for 2050.

Transforming our financial system for a greener future is an important part in helping us to continue to lead the way. The financial sector has a central role to play in delivering the investment we need to meet our environmental objectives—and the strength of that sector means the UK is well placed to grasp the opportunities from leading in green finance, as part of our industrial strategy.

The strategy has the twin objectives of aligning private sector financial flows with clean, environmentally sustainable and resilient growth, supported by Government action; and strengthening the competitiveness of the UK financial sector. It is in part a response to the independent Green Finance Taskforce that reported in 2018.

The strategy outlines measures to: green the financial system by ensuring current and future financial risks and opportunities from climate and environmental factors are integrated into mainstream financial decision making, and that markets for green financial products are robust in nature; accelerate finance to support the delivery of the UK’s carbon targets and clean growth, resilience and environmental ambitions, through a package of measures on energy efficiency in buildings, and through the launch of the Green Finance Institute; and ensure that UK financial services capture the domestic and international commercial opportunities arising from green finance.

I will place a copy of the Green Finance Strategy in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS1682]

Contingencies Fund Advance

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

HM Treasury will incur new expenditure in connection with a legal settlement in 2019-20.

Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £84,200,000 for this new expenditure will be sought in a supplementary estimate for HM Treasury. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £84,200,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

[HCWS1685]

Early Years Education

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)]

Today, I am announcing the allocation of just over £22 million for 66 School Nurseries Capital Fund (SNCF) projects across the country. This investment is part of our commitment to create more high quality school-based nursery provision for disadvantaged children. These innovative projects are intended to test and evaluate approaches aimed at closing the disadvantage gap, deepen our understanding of “what works” and spread best practice throughout the sector.

I am also announcing the launch of a new campaign called Hungry Little Minds to encourage parents to provide a language-rich home learning environment, which, evidence shows, is crucial for improving early outcomes. The campaign is underpinned by a behaviour change model published by the Government in November and follows the ambition set last July by the Secretary of State for Education to halve in 10 years the proportion of children who finish reception year without the expected level of development in communication, language and literacy.

These initiatives are part of our work to provide equality of opportunity for every child, regardless of background or where they live, because we know that improving support in the early years is the cornerstone of social mobility.

Details of today’s announcement are being sent to all SNCF applicants and a list of successful projects will be published on www.gov.uk. Copies will be placed in the House Library. This statement has also been made in the House of Lords.

[HCWS1684]

Paterson Inquiry Indemnity

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)]

It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is not statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental Minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the statement, except in cases of special urgency.

I have today laid a departmental Minute proposing to provide an indemnity that is necessary in respect of a Department of Health and Social Care established non-statutory, independent inquiry into the issues raised by the malpractice of the former breast surgeon, Ian Paterson, in the independent sector and the NHS. The actions of Ian Paterson have affected a significant number of patients. The disclosures about the seriousness and extent of his malpractice are deeply and profoundly shocking. The inquiry reflects the Government’s commitments to ensuring lessons are learnt in the interest of patient protection and safety, both in the independent sector and the NHS.

In 2017, the Minister of State for Health announced the establishment of the Inquiry (HCWS323, on 7 December 2017) to be chaired by the right Reverend Graham James, Bishop of Norwich. This indemnity will cover the entire duration of the inquiry’s work, from December 2017 until when the inquiry submits its report, now expected at the end of 2019. The indemnity will cover the Chair and all independent advisers appointed to the inquiry against any liability for any act done or omission made honestly and in good faith in the execution of his or her duty as such, or in the purported execution of his or her duty as such. The indemnity only applies to acts done or omissions made during the course of the inquiry. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.

The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this Minute was laid before Parliament, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.

Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-07-02/HCWS1683/.

[HCWS1683]

Grand Committee

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Grand Committee

Tuesday 2 July 2019

Arrangement of Business

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

Academic Health Science Centres

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

15:30

Asked by

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy and timetable for re-designating academic health science centres.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, I thank those other Members of the House, some of them very distinguished in health issues, who have put their names down to speak. Someone pointed out to me that if I were unfortunate enough to suffer a stroke, this would be the moment to do it.

I declare an interest as recorded in the register of interests. I serve as a non-executive member of the board of an AHSC—namely, King’s Health Partners, which includes King’s College London, King’s College Hospital, Guy’s and St Thomas’ and the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. From 2009 to 2014, I chaired the board of King’s Health Partners.

I need not remind your Lordships what an exciting time this is for advances in medical science. The concept of academic health science centres offers a means to exploit those opportunities for the benefit of people locally, nationally and across the world. By bringing together great biomedical research institutions with outstanding teaching and clinical hospitals, it offers the opportunity not only to trial advances in medical science but to bring them to fruition for the care of patients.

Apart from the United States, which pioneered the concept of AHSCs, the United Kingdom is perhaps the country best equipped to make the most of those opportunities. In London and our great academic centres, we have ground-breaking research universities: colocated with long established and world-famous teaching and clinical hospitals. In 2009, the NIHR accredited the first five AHSCs: three based in London, one in Cambridge and one in Manchester. In 2014, following a further competition, they were reaccredited and a further one in Oxford was added. The accreditation was for five years and is due to be renewed in 2019.

It is important to recognise that this was simply a structural initiative. No extra money was provided and the institutions remain fully within the state sector. King’s Health Partners is the AHSC which I know best. This year, we celebrated our 10th anniversary. I believe that our achievements over that time, stimulated by the AHSC initiative, have been impressive. Brilliantly led—indeed, driven—by its chief executive, Sir Robert Lechler, assisted by a small but outstanding team, the reach of King’s Health Partners has been remarkable.

As I said, the underlying concept of AHSCs is to bring together frontier-breaking research with teaching and clinical care. Sir Robert approached this in King’s Health Partners by establishing 22 clinical academic groups, embracing the full range of medical specialties and bringing together from the four institutions the leading members in each.

King’s Health Partners has a number of assets which have assisted in making the most of those opportunities: two NIHR biomedical research centres, which provide unparalleled facilities for experimental medicine and in which 600 clinical trials are current at any one time, covering more than 3000 patients; the leading research institute in the country in psychiatry, psychology and neuroscience, colocated with the leading hospital in the care of mental illness, which has enabled advances to be made from the increasing recognition of the links between physical and psychological illness; and a diversity of population in south London, where the widest range of physical and psychological conditions give unique opportunities for research and treatment.

In addition to the advances made in individual specialities, King’s Health Partners has pioneered a number of other advances. As a response to the ever-increasing demands on health services, it has pioneered the concept of value-based healthcare and preventive measures, not least through the concept of the vital five factors in the prevention of disease—blood pressure, obesity, mental health, alcohol intake, and smoking habits—which have been promulgated through KHP’s academic health science network in south London. This work will make a real difference in reducing future demands on the health services, as well as giving people the prospect of happier and healthier lives, and is of course a key plank in the long-term plan for the health service.

At a recent seminar to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the AHSC, we had presentations of some of the advances made in patient care over the last 10 years that have made a major contribution to the life prospects of patients. They include: treatment for Hodgkin’s lymphoma avoiding the side-effects of radiotherapy in children; advances in the application of naloxone for heroin addicts; genetic treatment to reduce inheritance of breast and ovarian cancer; separation of the elements of cannabis so that the benign element can be used in patients; a new approach to recognition and treatment of prenatal eclampsia; MRI recognition of scar tissue to assist life-saving treatment of heart attacks; and improvements of means to prevent rejection in organ transplantation. On top of that, we can be immensely proud of the contribution that British science has made to dealing with the Ebola epidemics in Africa. There is so much going on that it is impossible to cover it all in one speech—for example, exploitation of the opportunity provided by informatics to join up patient records across our health system.

I am sure that the other AHSCs can tell a similar story. The nub of it is this. Certainly on the basis of my experience, the concept of AHSCs has been an outstanding success. They promote a national asset in which the United Kingdom is a real world leader. They are a magnet for talent and worth investing in. At a time of severe pressure on resources, they make a major contribution to more cost-effective healthcare for our National Health Service. There is great potential still to be tapped.

Reaccreditation will provide both a stimulus and an opportunity. It would be cost effective if that were accompanied by a modest financial grant. We are talking of only a small handful of millions, which would make a big difference—chickenfeed in relation to the overall cost of the NHS. Therefore, I hope that in her reply the Minister will provide that encouragement, and in particular give us a firm timetable for the process of reaccreditation. King’s Health Partners has been preparing itself for that and is waiting for the signal.

15:39

[Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for calling this debate on this vital topic. I also think the Library for its briefing. I declare my interests both as a visiting professor at Imperial College AHSC, where I work with the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, and as a former Minister with responsibility for this area of policy.

The topic that we are really discussing today is innovation in the NHS and how we make the most of it. It strikes me that medical innovation is both our greatest opportunity and our greatest challenge. It is our greatest opportunity because for the first time we face the prospect of truly personalised medicines that could take hitherto untreatable and often terminal illnesses and cure them for life. We face the glorious fact that we in this country are responsible for huge amounts of medical innovation in our universities, our hospitals and elsewhere besides. However, it is also our greatest challenge because of the NHS’s reputation for adopting innovation, which, frankly, is not good, not least because there is huge pressure on database services to deliver the basics, meaning that many staff do not have the resources or the time that they need to adopt innovation. So at once innovation is our greatest strength but its adoption is our Achilles heel.

The Minister knows this better than anyone. She knows the importance of tackling this topic and resolving the tension. In the six months that she has been Minister she has already shown great resolve in this, both through the creation of the boosted accelerated access collaborative, and through her work on health data to take advantage of that opportunity and the launch of NHSX. Those are all crucial factors as we move towards the idea—a culture change, really—of thinking of the NHS not just as a health delivery organisation but as a research and development one too.

As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, alluded to, in this sense AHSCs are both a microcosm and an exemplar. They demonstrate, in one connected set of institutions, the ability to move from basic science in the lab all the way through to clinical application. I have seen the benefit of that myself when visiting UCL and the biomedical research centres at Oxford, where patients were among the very first in the world to have treatments for their cancers that had been invented in the labs just metres down the corridor.

I believe that redesignation is essential, not just to retain this excellence but, critically, to lead the system to a different and more research-oriented future. I speak from experience when I say that I know it has been the intention to redesignate, and I believe that that is still the case. I look forward to the Minister describing how and when that is going to happen. This time, though, I think we need to do it not just as a badge on these fantastic institutions but with a specific dual purpose with funding attached. The first of those purposes would be to prototype the bench-to-bedside approach and then to roll it out through the NHS. The truth is that we have fantastic adoption in some parts of the NHS but it is extremely patchy. I believe that AHSCs should be given a system leadership role to demonstrate what can be done and then work with other trusts to make sure that that can happen.

Secondly, as I have said, we in this country have one of the greatest opportunities that exist in the whole medical research realm through the use and the maximisation of value of our health data assets, something that we have discussed many times in this House, and using the wonderful technologies that we have in artificial intelligence—many of the leading-edge technologies are developed in this country—to apply them to the healthcare challenges that we face. That would not only give us the chance to change what happens for patients in the NHS but would retain our global leadership in this area.

I would very much appreciate hearing whether the Minister shares these ambitions for our AHSCs. I believe that through that redesignation, by giving them a turbo-boosted purpose and extra funding, they can lead the way for the future.

15:43

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, for initiating this important debate. As he did, I took part in the debate nearly nine years ago introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I was a non-executive director at King’s at that time and an independent panel member of the National Institute for Health Research. I was going to say a bit about King’s but I think the noble Lord has covered that, and I will spare the rest of the company. However, I chaired consultant appointment panels for a number of years, and it was clear from the calibre of applicants, all with research and international experience, that the AHSCs were expected to provide an atmosphere in which they could work and flourish.

My first question to the Minister is: given the internationalism of the best clinicians, how will the Government ensure the flow of talent needed and maintain that standard? In her speech to the Association of British HealthTech Industries last month, she said that,

“we must be relentless in our drive to ensure that the UK maintains its place at the cutting edge of health innovation”.

Only yesterday, in repeating the Statement on the NHS long-term plan, the Minister referred to,

“more investment in research and innovation”.—[Official Report, 1/7/19; col. 1270.]

Does she consider £39 million sufficient to maintain AHSCs as centres of excellence? The Government have enjoyed a lot of good will from these institutions and structures. I wonder whether it has now worn a little thin.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is sorry not to have been able to take part in this debate; she is on her way to Bangor—I am sure that there is a song about that somewhere. She indicated that what she regards as the jewel in the crown could be in jeopardy. Grants are so hard to come by that we are not growing our next generation of researchers. What action is being taken?

I want us to be able to compete on the world stage to attract the best consultants, researchers and innovators and, of course, to keep pharmaceutical companies here in the UK, but this is ultimately all about people. Perhaps I may give two examples from King’s. The CAR-T, or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell, to which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has referred, is treating adult patients with lymphoma. Mike Simpson, a 62 year- old solicitor from Durham, was one of the first to receive the treatment. He said:

“I’m incredibly grateful for being given the opportunity to have this therapy … I describe it as my L’Oréal treatment… because I’m worth it”.


King’s College researchers, along with Cambridge University, have identified why arteries harden and how a medication used to treat acne could be an effective treatment for the condition. Trials are due to start shortly. I am sure that such exciting and positive developments sometimes help us forget the shortage of, and growing need for, skills in the health service, but we should feel proud of them and ensure that they continue. I hope that the Minister can answer my questions.

15:47

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)]

I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for initiating this debate. Given the number of people who will no doubt speak on behalf of different academic health science centres, the Committee should take it as read that I believe that they are all doing excellent work, because I want to explore one or two other areas.

On the need for a 21st-century research-led healthcare system, there is no political discord whatever—I think that we all agree on that, full stop. When the noble Lord, Lord Patel, managed to get the words “research led” on to the statute book during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, it was remarkable because it created a journey to which I think we all aspired.

There were some excellent signs. The early establishment of some academic health science centres during the years of the Labour Government was positive. In 2014, it was good to see the re-designation of six of them, five of them being in the “golden triangle” and the other in Manchester. I believed that was exciting but hoped it would pave the way for more. Why is there excellent research only in the south-east rather than elsewhere in the country? So far, that expansion has not transpired. If we simply go ahead and re-designate those already there, what will happen to my area, Yorkshire and the Humber? Are we saying that there are no initiatives worthy of designation in Yorkshire and the Humber or the north-east? Surely not. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.

My first plea in any reaccreditation exercise is to include areas that have a strong track record of collaboration between academia and research. In so doing, please use the opportunity to simplify structures that Peter Drucker once described as,

“the most complex in human history”.

Drucker was interesting, but it cannot be right to have differing governance, finance, clinical and political structures in each of the organisations, most with scant involvement of the people they serve. I have a great deal of time for Drucker but he had not looked at the rest of the health research landscape when he made his comments. As Professor Ovseiko argued in 2014, in a superb article on improving accountability through alignment, unless our model of competing structures for research, education, patient care and funding is radically streamlined we will not realise the huge potential for improved patient care that lies within our grasp.

The current landscape defies logical examination. We now have academic health science networks in every region with a remarkably similar mission to the AHSCs, except that they have a budget. Some have close ties with their AHSC, if it exists—not so in Yorkshire and the Humber—some do not. They should surely be brought together within the AHSN using its organisational structures, which are already there and are being paid for by the taxpayer. What about the collaborations for leadership in applied health research and care—the CLAHRCs—of which I am currently chairman, which are soon to be replaced by another set of organisations, the applied research collaborations, for which I am a prospective chairman? Again, some have close ties with a regional AHSN, some do not. For good measure, how do we ensure that our remarkable research effort actually benefits all our citizens, not simply the regions where the organisations currently are?

Finally, money is essential in this. We have a host of small elements of money. We need this to be properly funded. The whole nation needs to be involved and to take this wonderful opportunity forward.

15:52

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Butler of Brockwell for introducing this debate so thoughtfully. I declare my interest as chairman of University College London Partners, one of the designated AHSCs, and professor of surgery at University College London. As we have heard from the noble Lord, AHSCs were first designated some 10 years ago, following the review by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi of Denham, at the 60th anniversary of the NHS. Their clear purpose was to overcome the two translational gaps: the one between a discovery and establishing a therapy in man, and the one between that and ensuring it can be used more broadly across a relevant population. As we have also heard, there has been huge success in achieving the two objectives of overcoming translational gaps 1 and 2 with great effect on outcomes for individual patients, performance in broad health economies and opportunities for wealth creation in our country. It should be borne in mind that the life sciences represent, after financial services, the second most important part of our economy.

The nature and complexity of innovation and the broader questions attending health systems have changed over that 10-year period. We are faced with demographic change and important fiscal challenge and restraint in health economies. It is broadly accepted that the adoption of innovation is critical if health economies are to remain sustainable. Organisations such as academic health science centres therefore have a pivotal role. As we have heard, successive Governments have recognised not only the potential role of these centres, but the broader question of innovation in health economies through the creation of other designations, such as AHSNs, collaborations for applied research, biomedical research centres and so on. As we come to this third designation for academic health science centres, the question for Her Majesty’s Government is: what specific purpose do they see for AHSCs in the changed landscape for innovation in our health economies? Where do the AHSCs sit in terms of these other structures and designations, how are they to be co-ordinated, and how will we determine their success? We also have to try to understand whether the designation of academic health science centres in the future will be attended by contractual obligations, as we saw recently in the redesignation of the academic health science networks. To date, each of the AHSCs has been able to perform effectively, but driving its own agenda determined by its own local priorities and regional, national and global opportunities. Will that be the case in the future?

There remains also an outstanding question about how government and arm’s-length bodies in the NHS propose to facilitate the most important opportunity for academic health science centres: that is, their capacity to mobilise data across complex health economies and bring those to bear, not only on drug discovery but on changing the patterns and application of clinical care, development of the workforce, and of course the utilisation of vital resource most effectively. Do Her Majesty’s Government propose to deal with this particular question of mobilising the opportunity for health informatics in redesignation of academic health science centres? Finally, as we have heard, these designations come without any funding. Is it proposed that, at the time of redesignation, some funding is provided to the AHSCs?

15:56

[Lord Darzi of Denham (Lab)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, for calling this debate on the future policy of academic health science centres. I declare an interest: I chair the Accelerated Access Collaborative, I am a non-executive director of NHS Improvement, and I am professor of surgery at Imperial College London.

As some in this House may recall, in 2007 I led a review of London’s healthcare—A Framework for Action —which recommended the creation of a number of AHSCs in the capital. That created significant noise nationally. Subsequently, in 2008 we published the NHS next-stage review, called High Quality Care For All, and the Department of Health, under the auspices of the NIHR, commissioned five academic health science centres nationally.

AHSCs are organisations that hold a joint and equal responsibility for the delivery of healthcare, education and research. The combination of scientific method and clinical care has been seen as the fastest means of ensuring that scientific advances are translated into improvements in patient care. The establishment of the AHSCs in the UK was through a competitive process, as we heard earlier, judged by an international panel, and represented an attempt to regain this lost momentum. With no additional funding, the universities and their NHS partners in these five centres pledged to combine strategy, operations, and in some cases finance to deliver innovations in teaching, research and service delivery. Over the last decade, as we have heard, the AHSCs, with their BRCs, have made a significant contribution to translational research. Translation has typically either meant “bench to bedside”, meaning basic science to first in human use, or “knowledge translation”, meaning uptake of new innovations. This brings me to the Accelerated Access Collaborative and its role in the NHS innovation landscape.

The AAC is a convening board bringing together NHS commissioners and providers, NHS arm’s-length bodies, industry, patient organisations and Government to ensure that the innovation landscape builds a strong pipeline of proven innovations that meets the service needs and to increase the adoption and diffusion of such across the NHS. The remit of the AAC has recently been expanded by the announcement of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, to include six priorities: implementing a system to identify the best new innovations; setting up a single point of call for innovators, so they can understand the system and where to go for support; signalling the needs of clinicians and patients, so innovators know which problems they need to solve; establishing a globally leading testing infrastructure, so innovators can generate the evidence they need to get their products into the NHS; and overseeing a health innovation funding strategy that ensures that public money is focused on the areas of greatest impact for the NHS and our patients.

In light of all this, I see the AHSCs as having a unique and distinct contribution to make to the innovation ecosystem and the priorities of the AAC by providing a pragmatic testing environment, enhancing the uptake of innovation through their expertise in research methods, access to data and our great NHS clinicians.

The Accelerated Access Collaborative will work with the department of health over the next month to define further the role the AHSCs and their future designation.

16:00

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for this debate. I am thankful to follow the presentation of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi; after all, he was the one who started the whole concept of the AAC. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Prior of Brampton, will follow me because he might be interested in what I have to say.

Hitherto we have all been supportive of the idea and the successes of the academic health science centres, so let me take a slightly radical view. If we are serious about how good our academic health centres are, we should look at models that really deliver the change. The noble Lord, Lord Darzi, mentioned teaching, research, innovation and clinical application, the key themes of the successful, leading research-based academic health centres in the United States. Are we saying that we have been serious in adopting this in our clinical practice, taking scientific inquiry into clinical application? Yes, of course we have started and have been successful.

In the United States, however, policy-making in healthcare involves a pluralistic approach. In our case it is the department of health that decides on the policy. If academic health science centres are to be successful, they need to be part of that policy-making. That has implications for us to be more pluralistic and for the academic health centres to be involved. For instance, if we agree that this is a good idea, the recognition of the distinctive nature and contribution of academic health science centres might greatly facilitate the development and implementation of policy in a number of areas. These include addressing the current crisis in clinical academic careers in the United Kingdom, growing and modernising the NHS workforce and meeting concerns over clinical governance.

There are, however, additional questions of interest to society that cannot be adequately framed in the absence of an academic health science centre concept. For example, what is the role of AHSCs in supporting government objectives for UK success in a knowledge-based economy—the so-called strategy for life sciences that we are now developing—in improving the impact of research, and in technology transfer? How can AHSCs leverage their academic resources to contribute to improved quality in the NHS? What is the social and economic contribution of AHSCs to local communities? Can AHSCs provide leadership in the development of new models of partnership working and the development of clinical networks? Even to pose these questions it may be necessary to develop a model that is unique to Britain.

Academic health science centres have hitherto been extremely successful. They need to be supported even more and included more in developing our policies.

16:03

[Lord Prior of Brampton (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I should first declare an interest as chairman of NHS England and a non-executive director of Genomics England. I support the noble Lord, Lord Butler, especially and all the arguments other noble Lords have made.

I will begin by taking noble Lords’ minds back to 1980, when two Senators in the US, Senator Bayh and Senator Dole, passed the Bayh-Dole legislation, which forced universities receiving money for federal research to commercialise their IP. Until that day the IP had sat in the ivory towers of the universities and had not been exploited. From 1980 on we saw this extraordinary growth in Silicon Valley and, latterly, Boston as universities were forced to commercialise their intellectual property.

We have been much slower in the UK. Until recently, universities, particularly Oxford and Cambridge, were ivory towers. That has changed and the AHSCs are part of that change. We have developed an ecosystem in the UK that is both hard to replicate elsewhere and extensive. Whether it is the BRCs, the HSCs, the AHSNs, the Crick or the LMB, we have an extraordinary and competitive life sciences ecosystem. It is becoming even more competitive as we see the convergence of biology with data, statistics, computer sciences and artificial intelligence. That puts the UK in a very strong position.

Money comes into this. I have done the Minister’s job and I was involved at BEIS with the industrial strategy. Our problem is that our ambition is so low. Our ambition was to get up to the OECD average for research spending in five years—2.4% of GNP, at a time when the Germans were already at more than 3%. We have to argue for £5 million for a new LICRE digital application across London. We have to argue for £20 million or £15 million for a new dataset for people with polygenic risk scores, for example. We are fiddling while the rest of the world—China and the US—is putting huge resources into this. When I was working on the industrial strategy, I looked at countries as diverse as Singapore, Israel, Ireland and Switzerland, where there was active government involvement in research and industrial strategy. America is always seen as the land of small government, but the NIH is a massive funder of life sciences research.

I do not know how we can change the mindset of the Treasury and the British Government. The only good thing that might come out of Brexit, which I think is a universally bad thing, is that it will provide us with a big shot in the arm. Whether we put in the money through AHSCs or through other vehicles in our ecosystem—UKRI, the MRC, the BBSRC—I do not care, as long as we get more money into fundamental, basic research and support the translational research for the BRCs, the NIHR and the AHSCs. I am fully in alignment with the redesignations of AHSCs. Whether more money comes in through them or other parts of the ecosystem, we have a huge opportunity in life sciences. I know that the Minister supports that, too.

16:07

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Butler of Brockwell for bringing up the matter of redesignating academic health science centres. As noble Lords know, the six NHS university health partnerships that have been designated by the department of health are Cambridge, Imperial College London, King’s Health Partners in London, Manchester, Oxford and University College London. I ask your Lordships and the Minister to look at a map, where you will see that Scotland and the north of England have been left out. There is a serious north-south divide. Both Newcastle University and Glasgow do some excellent work. Will the Government extend the list to include the north of England and Scotland, so that the work to research new treatments and to improve health education and patient care can also be promoted in these areas? That would help to alleviate the discrimination between north and south.

I declare an interest as president of the Spinal Injuries Association. There is a great need for research. Spinal injury causing paralysis is life-changing. Several bodies are raising money for this, on aspects such as bowels, bladders, pressure sores and sexual matters. Some of this research has links to some of the six partnerships on the list, but the ultimate aim is to find a way of joining the spinal cord. That needs global co-operation and the highest dedicated research, with hospitals and universities working together.

The disruption that Brexit is having on the NHS is evident. I have several reasons for being concerned about the £30,000 threshold, and universities may also have concerns. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the £30,000 threshold on delivering research and on specific groups such as early-career researchers, part-time staff, technicians and other specialists working in the UK?

Many people with disabilities of all sorts live in hope that universities will find cures for their condition. It would be helpful if NICE were able to speed up its assessment of technology, which is increasing as research moves on at a great pace.

16:11

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, I shall describe how I tried to enhance the co-operation and understanding between academia and hospitals by having all the trainees in a third of the south-east region spend a year or two on the academic side. In 1971, as professor of surgery at Guy’s Hospital, I started a comprehensive training programme that lasted until the trainees were appointed to a consultant post.

Several years were spent in district general hospitals and several years at Guy’s. The trainees experienced a wide range of surgical disciplines, including anaesthetics and intensive care. They also spent a year or two on the research side, including a year at Harvard. This gave them an involvement in research that they carried with them into their consultant work in the NHS. In addition, many of them became professors of surgery. The Guy’s Hospital training programme gave junior staff not only more comprehensive training but more security and a more stable family life. It also shared out the junior staff more fairly with the district general hospitals in a third of the south-east region. Most important of all, it encouraged young trainees to embrace academia early on in their career.

16:12

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I join everyone in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, for putting forward for discussion this important subject of the future of the academic health science centres. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for asking: what about Yorkshire? I say that as a Bradfordian.

We could probably have done with at least another hour to do justice to this subject and indeed to the distinguished speakers who have taken part, such as my noble friend Lord Darzi. We have four ex-Ministers here, and then the Minister herself. It is all right; I have been in rooms like this with virtually everyone in the room knowing more than I do about the subject being talked about.

I think we would all agree that these health centres provide essential research in medicine, clinical trials, cancer treatments, mental and physical health integration and much more. At a time of such uncertainty regarding our collaboration with Europe colleagues to conduct health science research due to Brexit, it is vital that we have clarity on the next steps for the academic health science centres in the UK. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prior, about the lack of ambition regarding finance, funding and our position on research. I am not sure that I quite understood whether he thought that Brexit was a good or bad thing for the future of research, and I will come back to that.

I have declared in the register of interests that I am a member of the Camden Clinical Commissioning Group, so I am at the foothills of the NHS. However, I am aware of the research done by Moorfields and UCL on, for example, laser treatment for glaucoma, which is important to our CCG. The treatment is said to have had high success rates, with the research suggesting an annual saving to the NHS of £1.5 million in direct treatment costs, potentially rising to £250 million if the treatment proves beneficial for patients with later-stage glaucoma. In Camden CCG, we are proud that our area has many major research centres—Moorfields, UCL and Great Ormond Street—and regard our job as primary care commissioners as being to make sure that we co-operate with them.

I return to Brexit. One of the health science partners, the University of Cambridge, stated:

“Both the NHS and the UK life sciences industry desperately need clarity and certainty to plan successfully for Brexit, and time has almost run out”.


That was in March, but it remains true, and the Government must consider what solid solutions can be offered. If we fall out of the European Union at the end of October, that presents an enormous challenge to the centres. It makes it more important that they exist and receive sufficient funding, I agree, but the collaborations that need to be carried out across Europe and the world seem to become more difficult. I would like the Minister’s view on that.

16:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for raising this question on AHSCs. I pay tribute to his work as the former chair and now non-executive director at the King’s Health Partners AHSC and to his speech setting out some of the achievements that have been delivered. This has been a supremely expert debate, so I feel somewhat cautious in summing up. I thank noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon about their work in AHSCs, notably the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar, Lord Patel and Lord Darzi, and my noble friends Lord Prior and Lord O’Shaughnessy, who have been so instrumental in developing the system to where it is today. This is a timely debate because, as many noble Lords said, we are developing policy options for AHSCs going beyond the current designation. As noble Lords know, it is due to end in December this year. I acknowledge that this is a tense time for AHSCs, which will now be thinking about planning their future strategy. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for making the point that this is a cross-party issue and that there is wide agreement across the Chamber about the importance of AHSCs. I will say at the front that there is also consensus about the need to go forward to designation; the question is how we do that.

First, in response to some of the wider points that were made in the debate, I say that the Government recognise the critical role that health research plays not only in fuelling the life sciences sector, which is one of the most productive within our economy, but in driving up the quality of diagnosis, treatment and care in the NHS. We are committed to creating the best environment for clinical research and to achieving the ambition set out not only in the life sciences strategy but in the sector deals. This is the only sector to have two sector deals, and that is because of the quality of the sector and the relationship between research, industry and the NHS, which has developed into an outstanding ecosystem in the past few years. We have to pay tribute to the role that the NHS long-term plan will play in that, due in no small part to the leadership role of my noble friend Lord Prior.

This country is a world leader in health research, with a world-class science base and three of the top 10 globally ranked universities. As my noble friend Lord Prior said, we have an extraordinary life sciences sector, and we must be as ambitious as we possibly can be in driving it forward. We are investing more than £1 billion per year through the NIHR to fund research, skills and facilities to enable high-quality research. I can answer the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy: about £100 million of that was invested in a range of training programmes, and we have also created the NIHR training academy so that we can think about how we link that to international training.

We must ensure that we protect the valuable collaborations that we have because that ensures that we have the highest quality clinical research in the world. The commitment to increase our R&D investment from 1.7%, which has quite frankly not been good enough, to 2.4% and beyond that to 3% was hard won from the Treasury. I know that because I was one of the first to campaign on this as chair of the Science and Technology Select Committee some time ago. I will be one of the first to join noble Lords across the Committee in campaigning to drive further and faster, as we must not only have this commitment from our leadership candidates—and I am sure that others will join us in that—but keep driving forward blue-sky investment and further investment through the people, programmes, centres of excellence and the NIHR. That is how we will have an integrated health and research system which is one of the best in the world, designed to transform scientific breakthroughs into life-saving treatments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, is right that we should be proud of what we have already achieved. Between them, the existing AHSCs cover health research and education in a wide range of clinical disciplines including mental and physical healthcare, cancer, cardiovascular and inflammatory diseases. It would not be right it we did not pay tribute to some of that today. Noble Lords have already done that. While we do not fund the AHSCs specifically, of the 20 NIHR biomedical research centres, 12 are at the heart of these six AHSCs, representing more than £700 million of NIHR investment over five years from April 2017. This significant NIHR-funded research infrastructure is key to enabling its engines for world-class excellence in early translational biomedical research.

The existing AHSCs were designated based on recommendations made by an independent panel, which we heard about from the noble Lord, Lord Darzi. On the regional spread, I am afraid that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will be disappointed that they can be designated only in England, not in Scotland, but it is open to the new designating committee to consider the regional spread as that goes forward.

Over the past 10 years, the six AHSCs have facilitated the strategic alignment of some of our leading NHS providers and their university partners in world-class research and health education, leading to improvements in patient care and playing an important role in driving economic growth through partnerships with industry, including life sciences companies, which is one of our key priorities. It is through this strategic alignment that these partners have secured funding. An example is the £10 million funding from UKRI for a new centre for medical imaging and AI at King’s Health Partners as part of the industrial strategy challenge fund. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, spoke about the success of UCL Partners, which has, among many things, been leading on the adoption of a learning health system to standardise data entry. This has allowed seven CCGs to trial and support interventions into early detection of atrial fibrillation, which is a key priority of the long-term plan, and for primary care networks. Specific examples are the ways that we are going to change healthcare for individuals. Imperial AHSC has supported North West London STP’s integrated care record to bring together the health and social care information of 2.3 million patients in the sector, enabling the identification of patient cohorts and the evaluation of service developments.

London’s three AHSCs are collaborating through the MedCity initiative to grow the life sciences cluster of London and the greater south-east, working with the Oxford and Cambridge AHSCs. In Manchester—not in the south-east—the AHSC is working with the AHSN to align research and education into the health and social care priorities of the Greater Manchester population. A single blood test-driven decision aid for patients presenting with chest pain at the emergency department is being rolled out. Since June 2016, more than 7,000 patients have been treated using this tool and the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction was ruled out in more than 99% of cases, with patients returning home within hours of their arrival in the emergency department. This is evidence of how the AHSCs have changed clinical practice on the ground. Additional data published today by the NHIR clinical research network shows that NHS trusts which are part of the six AHSCs have undertaken more than 3,600 clinical studies and recruited 148,495 participants in 2018-19.We know that other academic health science partnerships have formed, further strengthening the health research and health education interface in London but, as my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy said, we must ensure that the deep research base that we have in this country is matched by a health system that embraces innovation and translates research funding into improved patient care, so that innovators can develop, test and deliver those products that patients and clinicians need and so that examples such as those I have just given can be adopted.

We know that in the past the system has been too fragmented, too complex for innovators to navigate and too slow to adopt promising technologies. That is why last summer, at my noble friend’s instigation, the department undertook an innovation landscape review, which identified the need for a system which was more joined up between healthcare partners, and for improved support for late-stage evidence and a better strategic alignment of priorities, such as how we support emerging technologies, including AI, drug discovery, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and precision medicine.

As my noble friend Lord Prior pointed out, it is also important to recognise the role of collaboration between NHS, industry and academia. During the landscape review, we found huge appetite for change and more ambition within the healthcare stakeholders who need to implement it. That is why the sector deals, the NHS long-term plan and the tech vision have all begun the process of transforming a significant part of strategy within government policy. Through the establishment of the accelerated access review and NHSX, as has been mentioned, we have started to build the necessary infrastructure effectively to support health innovation in this country. Under the expert leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, the AAC brings together senior leaders from the key government, NHS and industry partners with patient and clinician representatives to promote innovation within the NHS. Already, the AAC has made significant progress in supporting uptake.

We must agree that AHSCs and other structures must work hand in hand with AHSMs and wider innovation infrastructure to ensure that this is wired into the ARCs and will be in AHSCs. This is why I have asked the AAC to consider AHSCs, to ensure that the whole system is joined up, because that is what it is leading on. It is important that we give the AAC and the noble Lord the opportunity to build a cohesive health, research and innovation ecosystem that meets the challenges that we have set and the ambitions that we need our life sciences sector to deliver. That is why I have asked the AAC to consider AHSCs’ role within the health system as part of the boost agreement. That will ensure that the future designation of AHSCs complements the innovation support landscape, rather than adding further complexity. The AHSCs will therefore support the AAC in achieving its new objectives, including commitments to establish globally leading testing infrastructure, improving the system’s capacity to adopt innovation.

We plan to extend the existing DHSC AHSC designation until March 2020 to enable that new designation process to be held. We will announce the timescales soon. I appreciate that is not necessarily the answer that noble Lords want, but I hope that the strategic vision, the need for ambition and the purpose, which is to deliver innovation for patients which changes their quality of care and the ambition of our life sciences ecosystem is understood as the reason for that change.

16:28

Sitting suspended.

European Union–Western Balkans Summit

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

16:30

Asked by

[The Earl of Sandwich]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the recent European Union-Western Balkans summit in Sofia has strengthened their support for European Union enlargement now and after Brexit.

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this further opportunity. I warmly thank the Minister and all distinguished colleagues for taking part. We are close to the 20th anniversary of our military intervention in the western Balkans, as I shall mention later. A secure and stable western Balkans means a secure and stable Europe. This is an obvious mantra which most of us would sign up to. However, I leave it to others to discuss security or Russia today. I will focus on enlargement.

If you go back to the good old days, when we were active EU members, it was consistently British government policy, under all Administrations, to support a wider Europe. This is not forgotten and I hope that the Minister will confirm it. We did not want a Europe pinned down by the eurozone, closer union or a European Army. We had the pound and NATO to look after our interests. We believed in the nation state and border controls to allow us to draw up our own immigration policy. But at that time, despite all these reservations, we could proudly call ourselves Europeans. It is quite tragic that, owing to a narrow vote in an advisory referendum, we have now had to abandon a position that originally commanded a majority view, namely to belong to a Europe that could look outwards rather than inwards and could adapt to the priorities of its members.

The great test came in the 1990s when, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the EU had an immediate opportunity to invite new members from eastern Europe who were queueing up to join. Countries such as Bulgaria and Romania, and later Slovenia and Croatia, met the criteria early, but there were others who did not. In that category were the western Balkans, and many of them—even those that are NATO members—remain in limbo for a range of reasons, chiefly the EU’s chapters on the rule of law, governance and corruption. While enthusiasm for enlargement in Europe, especially in Paris, has waned, for those countries it remains very much alive. The UK in particular is seen to be deserting them owing to Brexit, although I recognise the efforts our Government are making to dispel this impression.

The political background is becoming much more unsettled with the rise of anti-immigration parties and the gradual end of the Merkel-Macron entente. A few weeks ago, Le Monde reprinted a photo of the two presidents happily together in the forest of Compiegne back in November. Below it, a headline said that the differences in the bosom of this Franco-German couple are finally revealed. Monsieur Macron opposes enlargement because he wants more reform and a closer union. The Dutch and Austrians support him against Frau Merkel who is in favour but has to go through constitutional procedures. As a result, EU foreign and Europe ministers recently postponed an important decision to open accession talks with North Macedonia and Albania.

I said in an earlier debate, in January, that the idea of enlargement has been discredited quite unfairly, because it remains a sensible policy for Europe. The key figures are now changing but Donald Tusk is one of those who keep reminding Ministers that decisions have to be made. Speaking before the summit in Sofia last year, he said that Europe remained the western Balkans’ strategic choice:

“Investing in ... the Western Balkans is in the EU’s best interest. And it will be the objective of our summit”.


After Sofia he was even more forthright:

“I don’t see any other future for the Western Balkans than the EU”.


They,

“are an integral part of Europe and they belong to our community”.

There is therefore still plenty of good will behind the so-called Berlin process, which is now nearly five years old. It continues later this week in Poznan, when member states will again consider the more practical aspects, such as the economy, connectivity, the civic dimension and security, which underline the whole purpose of enlargement. The Minister will assure us, I hope, that even if and when we are outside the Berlin process, we will support these objectives. This is because we are already deeply engaged. We have supported not only enlargement in general and the candidature of Macedonia and Albania but the specific case of Serbia’s and Kosovo’s membership.

As noble Lords will know, while recognised by the UN as an independent state, Kosovo is not yet recognised by Serbia, Russia or even some EU members, including Spain, which fears the consequences for its own separatist campaign in Catalonia. But we have just passed the 20th anniversary of the end of the Kosovo war, and it is time to recall the full horror of that event.

The war between the Kosovo Liberation Army and Serbia/Montenegro lasted from February 1998 to June 1999. As a result, 13,500 died—more than 10,000 of them ethnic Albanians—and more than 1.2 million fled. There were atrocities on both sides, but NATO finally intervened to save civilian casualties, although some could not be avoided. Even today, 3,500 NATO peacekeeping troops remain in Kosovo because of the continuing tension between the two communities. On an IPU visit, I witnessed this tension from the elegant bridge over the Ibar river at Mitrovica, which separates Serbs in the north from Albanian Kosovars in the south. Only a few weeks ago, the Serbian army went on full alert when Kosovan police arrested Serbs during an anti-corruption drive. Four police were injured while removing a roadblock but the situation calmed down in a couple of days. These things are happening.

Since Sofia, we have continued to encourage dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia; this was once the favourite project of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, when she was high representative and is now her successor’s. The latest topic is a proposal to swap land which has a majority of ethnic Albanians on one side for land that is largely occupied by Serbs. The idea is firmly opposed by both the Commission and member states, because such a swap could lead to similar proposals in Bosnia and elsewhere and might become a tinder-box. However, according to one Kosovar MP who was here recently, although it is a bad idea, it is about the only subject that will keep the two presidents talking. I expect the Minister will say that the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue keeps alive the prospect of membership but that there are many other criteria in the rules that still stand in the way.

Similarly, North Macedonia’s name change and Albania’s local elections should assist their EU applications, but these, too, are being held up by ethnic tensions and the chaotic political scene on Sunday in Tirana. So the situation is still uncertain, both because of differences and changes among European leaders and because of the innate problems of the region.

What can be done besides encouraging good governance? I argue that every effort should be made to encourage investment alongside the gradual reform of institutions, to ensure greater stability and security. The region as a whole has seen stronger economic growth, with even Kosovo’s economy—usually one of the slowest—growing at 3.9% last year and continuing upwards.

The Poznan summit will certainly consider energy. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development supported by the EU, has embarked on an impressive regional energy programme financed through the Western Balkans Investment Framework. This includes green technology investments in Bosnia-Herzegovina and an online catalogue of over 4,000 energy-efficient products called the technology selector. There are specific targets to combat climate change and appalling pollution—mainly caused by 16 coal-fired power stations—which must be met urgently. All this can be achieved if the Balkans are seen as a European priority that now requires our support.

I very much look forward to hearing what others, including the Minister, will say.

16:40

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I have always, as has my party, supported the enlargement of the European Union to bring in the former socialist states of central and eastern Europe. It was right that in 1990, despite the Prime Minister’s mistakes in her approach to German unification, we were among the strongest supporters of setting the countries of central and eastern Europe on the road to enlargement.

I was one of those who had to go over there in 1990 to 1991 to explain to representatives of those countries that this was not as easy as they thought and that it would take a great deal longer than they expected. I recall a conference in Kiev in December 1991 in which the foreign minister of that newly independent state said that Ukraine had two foreign policy objectives for the following two years: firstly, to join the European Communities and, secondly, to join NATO. The Americans in the delegation looked at me and said, “You are going to answer that one”. It has been and remains difficult but enlargement, at least as far as the Polish-Ukrainian border, is part of how we extend security, prosperity and democracy across Europe.

My interest in this comes from that period and from helping to set up the international relations department in Central European University, finding myself teaching Bosnians, Croats and Serbs together and hearing some of their stories of what they had been through together over the previous two or three years. Teaching international relations to people who have seen their friends killed a year or two previously is not easy. My interest in this also comes from having worked with Paddy Ashdown and learning from him that the British could not stand away from this. I remember well how irritated John Major was as Prime Minister when Paddy began to raise the issue and how, gradually, John Major was brought around. To his intense credit, John Major was the only politician who attended Paddy’s family funeral at his own request. He was a great Conservative who really understood how important all this was.

Now the “bastards” on the right-hand side of John Major’s party—who said to him that south-eastern Europe was no concern of the party’s, that the Germans could sort it out and that we should be a global Britain—have won. We no longer have a coherent foreign policy and, in a sense, this debate is therefore at the margins. However, it was right to commit to eventual enlargement and it is still right that we should support it if we are to continue to have any influence, which, of course, we are just about to give up. These are small, weak and internally divided states, and the combined European contribution to the stability of the western Balkans over the last 20 years has been considerable. This has been achieved through EUFOR; financial assistance—part of our net contribution to the European budget, as the recent Foreign Secretary and former Brussels correspondent of the Daily Telegraph would not wish to admit; and working on good government and the rule of law. We have helped to stabilise those countries while recognising that there is still a long way to go.

We must recognise also that enlargement fatigue, as it is so widely called, is well established in the other member states of the European Union. This is not entirely surprising when we see that Hungary, where I used to teach the students to whom I referred, has now, sadly, gone backwards, that the university in which I taught has now more or less been expelled, and that Bulgaria and Romania are now full members without having completed the full transition to the rule of law, anti-corruption and transparent democracy. Welcoming in new countries that are further down the road on that is not entirely easy. They have polarised politics; to one degree or another, corruption remains a problem; their economic conditions are poor; and, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has already noted, there are external pressures such as Russian interference and Chinese attempts to engage using cheap loans.

What do the British Government intend to do after we have left? Apparently, as I read in a government statement some months ago, we are promising financial assistance, so some of the money that Boris Johnson promises we will save by not contributing to the European community budget will perhaps go into what that budget was going to in the first place: financial assistance to south-eastern Europe.

Beyond that, it is not clear what influence we will have. I note that the government statement talked about maintaining our commitment to European values in the region, although at present we are not showing very much commitment to that as a “global Britain” which, if either of the two candidates for leadership wins, seems to represent a foreign policy in which, first, we follow President Trump and, secondly, we cosy up to the autocratic regimes in the Middle East and disengage from the European continent.

It may no longer matter whether or not Her Majesty’s Government support further enlargement, which I regret. I regret also that a substantial part of the Conservative parliamentary party may well not care.

16:46

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl on securing this debate. I realise that he has had to wait some time to reschedule it, but it turns out to be just the right moment. After all, this year we remember that it is 15 years since the big bang expansion of the EU in 2004, and later this week at Poznan we have the next round of the Berlin process, so it is on the money that we have the debate today.

As the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, have said, the western Balkans have gone through some transformations since the appalling conflicts in the period of the 1990s. Slovenia and Croatia have joined the EU and NATO, Albania and Montenegro are NATO states and Serbia has candidate status. However, the region suffered very badly from the results of those conflicts. The legacy is instability, yet of course stability is the very thing that the UK needs in that region. History has taught us that if you have instability in the western Balkans it becomes a direct danger to us.

The UK’s Ambassador to Montenegro, Alison Kemp, speaking in May this year at the workshop on the fight against corruption in the western Balkans, said,

“ensuring compliance with and implementation of key standards and reforms required in the areas of rule of law, good governance, and human rights remains a pressing issue. This was recognised in the EU Enlargement Strategy for the Western Balkans, launched in February 2018, which indicated that a concrete and sustained track record in tackling corruption is a key benchmark for West Balkan countries wishing to join the EU”.

However, as the noble Earl said, the EU 27 themselves have exactly not shown unanimity on the question of further enlargement. So is not the real question today: how serious are the EU 27 about further enlargement, with or without us in the EU? Austria, France and the Netherlands have all expressed caution about extending membership. Chancellor Merkel and President Macron displayed distinct differences of view about enlargement at the mini-summit in Berlin on 29 April this year.

Chancellor Merkel sees the place of states in the western Balkan region as being within the EU. She is pragmatic and understands that it is will take some time for them to adapt to be able to open and close chapters to be able to become members. President Macron, however, appeared to show little interest in further enlargement, believing it would further weaken the cohesion of the EU and fuel populist or far-right movements.

Does the UK intend to try to resolve the apparent blockage on enlargement caused by the reported difference of views held by Macron and Merkel? Against that background, the EU Commission says that Albania and North Macedonia have made good progress towards EU membership and that accession talks should now be opened. Do the Government agree with the Commission on this point, while we may disagree on so many others?

I note that my noble friend Lord Callanan issued a Written Ministerial Statement on 5 June after he attended the General Affairs Council. He said:

“Under discussions on enlargement, some Member States hoped that progress would be made at the June European Council to allow accession talks with North Macedonia and Albania”.


Was the UK among those who spoke in support of making progress at the Council?

The question of enlargement was expected to come up at the June EU Council. Can the Minister say whether it did? I listened carefully to the debate in this House on the summit Statement eight days ago but did not hear any indication that there was such a discussion. The Leader of the House said that the,

“European Council focused on climate change, disinformation and hybrid threats, external relations and what are known as the EU’s ‘top jobs’.—[Hansard, 24/6/19; col. 979.]

and I gather that they still have problems over the last item. So was progress made on enlargement at the June Council, or has that discussion been relegated to September?

The International Relations Select Committee report last year concluded in paragraphs 60 and 62 that EU membership for the countries of the Western Balkans was,

“the most reliable path for Western Balkan countries to achieve security, stability and prosperity”,

and that the UK should remain a,

“champion for accession”,

outside the EU. Do the Government agree with the committee’s assessment? If so, what are their plans to be that champion now and after Brexit?

16:51

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl on his initiative. I wish he had been with me some 15 years ago when I was ushered into the office of the then Greek Foreign Minister, Papandreou. On the wall was a large map of Europe. It was of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has said, the time of enlargement. One piece of the jigsaw was missing: the western Balkans. Papandreou said to me, “This issue is manageable and should be managed”, looking at the relatively small number of countries that are there and of course the relevance to us in Western Europe. If we do not go there and seek to find means of getting closer to those countries, they will continue to come to us in terms of corruption, drugs and gang warfare. We are aware that some of the worst gangs in London are Albanian and Kosovan.

Papandreou’s aim of a European perspective for the western Balkans has been echoed in a series of warm declarations since, culminating in the Sofia declaration of 17 May 2018, which talked of a shared vision,

“underpinned by our historic, cultural and geographic ties and by our mutual political, security and economic interests”.

It is significant that prior to the Sofia summit it was 16 years or so ago that the Thessaloniki summit took place. Although there have been many warm words since, there has been relatively little and slow progress. On 18 June this year, as has been said, the EU foreign and European Ministers postponed a decision to open accession talks, not even allowing the relevant countries to be on the foothills of accession.

The fact is that there are forces in Europe that are increasingly cautious about enlargement, partly because of disagreements but also because of the problems within those countries. We think of the paralysis in Bosnia-Herzegovina since the time of Dayton. Clearly there are many relevant factors, not least the backsliding, the authoritarian developments, the corruption which leads to hesitation about enlargement and the fact that many see risks to Europe in that enlargement.

Serbia and Montenegro are the frontrunners, but Serbia has not taken the normal first step of getting closer to NATO, in part because of the role of NATO in the Kosovo war. Serbia recently welcomed President Putin with ecstatic crowds in Belgrade, which suggests that it is not wholly committed. Certainly the Prime Minister wishes to ride two horses.

So far as Montenegro is concerned, I have met Dukanovic on many occasions. There are allegations of continuing corruption, particularly in his case. There are allegations of cigarette and tobacco corruption and links over centuries with the Italian Mafia and its predecessors. Nevertheless, Montenegro is forward in terms of adopting first the deutschmark and then the euro.

Some argue that the region should be seen as a whole, but that would penalise the front-runners. The date of 2025 has been mentioned for leading candidates. It is always useful to have a target date, but its realisation needs one to be very sceptical.

How then should we make progress? Obviously, it should be through step-by-step initiatives such as those set out in the annexe to the Sofia declaration. I am particularly concerned about the first priority in that declaration on law and order. If and when we leave the EU we shall still be a member of the Council of Europe, which has expertise in law and order, justice and institutions such as the Venice Commission and the European Court of Human Rights. We might argue that the European Union has the money and the Council of Europe has the expertise. Recently it has made a new priority of working with the countries of the western Balkans. Exactly a week ago, the council elected a Croat as its secretary-general. There are clearly links between the UK and the area beyond the European Union. I think of the British Council. It would be foolish of us to think that since our weight will be reduced within the European Union we can still argue credibly for enlargement. If we are a member of a club and we leave that club, we can hardly have much credible voice in seeking additional members for it. Indeed, any such initiatives might be considered impertinent by members of the club.

16:57

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the answer to the question we are debating today—whether the recent EU-west Balkans summit in Sofia has strengthened support for EU enlargement—can be provided quickly, clearly and shamefully. It is no. Support for EU enlargement since the Sofia summit has not been strengthened. If anything, it has been weakened. When the Foreign Ministers met in June, they made no progress towards opening accession negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked questions about the recent EU Council and I shall be interested in the answers, but I have to point out that if you read the communiqué you will see that the Heads of State and Government did not spend a single minute on enlargement; they merely noted the Foreign Ministers’ decision not to open negotiations. That is pretty feeble. We are still a member of the European Union and we were a party to that lamentable performance, so I hope the Minister can explain why and what we did to resist such an undesirable outcome.

Why does this matter? Ever since the 1990s, when Yugoslavia broke up and the west Balkans flirted with the sort of full-scale hostilities which caused the region massive damage and suffering twice before in the 20th century, it has been pretty clear that a large part of the task of stabilising the region and ensuring its future prosperity would be played by embedding its countries in a supportive international environment, to be done by membership of the United Nations, NATO, the Council of Europe and, mostly importantly, the EU. That was the conclusion of the report produced by your Lordships’ International Relations Committee 18 months ago and quoted by the noble Baroness. I suggest that it remains as true today as it was then.

The EU’s failure in June was open to criticism most particularly in respect of North Macedonia. Not only has the reformist Government in Skopje moved the country sharply towards EU standards and away from the previous nationalist agenda but that running sore in the western Balkans, the dispute over the country’s name, has been settled with Greece. I gather that subsequent progress has been made on accession to NATO—perhaps the Minister can tell us about that and when North Macedonia will become a full member of NATO. However, it would not fully compensate for the pusillanimity over EU accession.

Is the damage done by the failure irretrievable? It almost certainly is not. North Macedonia’s and Albania’s EU accession bids will be back on the agenda when the Foreign Ministers meet in October and the Heads of Government do so later that month. What will the Government say then? What will they do in the run-up to those meetings—we will still be a member then—to assure a better outcome and what are the prospects for achieving that?

This whole sorry saga illustrates another prevailing theme: the collateral damage done by Brexit to the UK’s influence. For long one of the champions of EU enlargement and stabilisation of the western Balkans, we are now little more than a faint voice crying from half way out of the door. It is surely no good us trying to deny that loss of influence. If anyone is tempted to do so, I suggest they try talking to anyone from any of the countries of the western Balkans. Is it irretrievable? Perhaps it is not, but that is a story for another time and another place.

17:02

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for bringing forward this timely debate. I am also relieved that I am only winding up for the Liberal Democrats and do not have to answer the debate, because it is one of the most depressing debates that we could be having at the moment. We face challenges to British influence and severe questions over the European Union’s willingness to enlarge. How different it was a quarter of a century ago, when there were prospects of eastward enlargement and the UK played a key role in leading it.

In 2019, enlargement to the western Balkans remains vital to those countries. As the noble Earl said, it remains vital to our security and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, suggested, the security of the western Balkans matters to the United Kingdom. However, it is unclear what influence the United Kingdom can have. When the International Relations Committee, whose report has been referred to already, took evidence from Sir Alan Duncan, I asked that question of him. I perhaps did so slightly inappropriately. I queried what influence the Government thought they could have when certain members of the Tory party were spending such a lot of time denigrating Germany’s role in Europe and suggesting that European integration was a bad thing. Surely that made it somewhat difficult—or impertinent, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, put it—for the UK to be advocating enlargement to the western Balkans, or at least encouraging the western Balkans to seek to join. If we are too good to be part of the EU, why on earth should we be encouraging other countries to join? That seems a little strange. Anyway, Sir Alan Duncan suggested that my question was “inappropriate” and therefore decided not to answer it, so I wonder if today the Minister could give an answer about whether she feels that British influence on this question is in fact declining. As a country that is, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has just suggested, essentially half way out of the door, with a declining voice, how does the UK envisage having an influence?

It could all have been so different, and arguably should have been. The idea of enlargement and the reasons for countries seeking to join the EU are very similar to the founding reasons for European integration: peace, security and stability. The six founding member states understood the reasons to co-operate. The countries of central and eastern Europe that joined in 2004 understood the reasons for being part of the European project, and so have the countries of the western Balkans—up to a point. As we have heard, there are questions about how far countries have actually changed. The EU has seen enlargement as a way of exercising soft power and exporting the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, all values to which the UK aspires and which we think of as British values as much as European. However, we have already seen that the countries of central and eastern Europe that got their act together, met the Copenhagen criteria and were allowed to join in 2004 or 2007 have begun to turn their backs on those European values. Viktor Orban talks about illiberal democracy. Other countries are facing questions of corruption or questions about their judiciary.

The EU’s ability to exercise its soft power may have come under question, but at least it was a positive aspiration. It was an aspiration best understood by Germany, which always felt that you could expand geographically but also deepen the integration process. We have heard that France under Macron is reluctant to enlarge to the western Balkans, but in many ways he is simply reiterating the concerns of France over decades, feeling that enlargement will weaken the integration process.

Do the current UK Government believe that in the final days of our membership of the EU—unless of course by some deus ex machina we do not leave—they can exercise any influence over President Macron and the other laggards on enlargement to persuade them that it is in the interests of the EU to enlarge? What influence do the Government think they can have on the countries of the western Balkans? We in this Room may feel that it is in the interests of the UK and the western Balkans to see enlargement, but so far the countries seem to be facing the dictum that I first heard in Budapest in 1996: “They pretend they want us and we pretend we’re ready”. The idea still seems to prevail that the EU does not look terribly open to enlargement, and perhaps the western Balkan countries are not as ready as they would like us to think they are.

17:08

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for initiating this timely debate. He opened with the mantra: “A secure and stable western Balkans means a secure and stable Europe”. It is worth repeating because it is the crux of this debate. We have a shared interest in working together to increase stability and help the region on its Euro-Atlantic path.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, the excellent report of your Lordships’ International Relations Committee identified a number of challenges, and those challenges are still there: US disengagement and increasing Russian influence. Regardless of whether we are in or out of the EU, we cannot afford for the Balkans to be unstable. We have seen six western Balkan nations seeking eventual membership of the EU: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia. While the EU opened accession talks with Montenegro and Serbia last month, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, highlighted that member states chose not to agree to the opening of accession negotiations with Albania and North Macedonia. As the FT put it in its editorial:

“Setting these countries on the path to membership is vital not just to maintain reform momentum but to send a message to the wider region—the most volatile in Europe—that the EU’s doors remain open”.


In particular, I strongly believe that the Greece-North Macedonia agreement deserves to be acknowledged by opening talks. I hope the Minister will agree with that this afternoon and will ensure that we use our influence. As we have heard, the failure to open negotiations was largely due to the concerns of France and the Netherlands. Commentators have suggested that they were fuelled by enlargement fatigue and anti-migrant sentiment, although 14 members states released a joint statement urging that talks begin. It is about expectations and hope. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made this point very strongly. At the summit in Sofia we had a very strong commitment about the EU’s intentions to strengthen its support for the region’s political, economic and social transformation. Social transformation is vital in embedding the values we have heard about into those countries. EU enlargement and the accession process are vital components of delivering change and the economic development required for longer-term peace and security.

Yesterday I met the Serbian ambassador. Obviously there are tensions and difficulties in Serbia. It is in a process of change, but if the people of Serbia see that we are turning our backs on them and that the pathway we are advocating will not be delivered, we will end up with greater problems.

We have the Berlin process, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, with the sixth annual summit between EU and western Balkan officials in Poznan. The focus is on youth, culture and security. Foreign Affairs, Interior and Economy Ministers will be working together and meeting the following day. At last year’s London summit, there were 140 civil society and youth attendees. What has happened since the London Berlin process? What will be reported to the delegates at Poznan about progress? Whatever path we follow, we want to be able to identify progress, because if we do not we will fuel disillusionment. We need to maintain confidence in the process. We need more than simple talking shops. We need political engagement. It is not for me to answer for the Government about how we maintain positive momentum, but it is important not to see this progress as simply engagement with Governments. It is about politicians and parliamentarians. It is about broad engagement with civil society. I know the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, will meet WFD officials shortly, and I would like to know more about the programmes we are undertaking to use soft power to influence the agenda so that, whether we are outside or inside the EU, we continue our engagement.

17:15

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry for coughing, but the air conditioning is not doing my throat any good. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for tabling this debate and all noble Lords for their interesting contributions. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that it is actually a pleasure to respond to this debate which has been constructive and illuminating. It is certainly timely, coming in the same week as the western Balkans summit in Poznan under the Berlin process and two weeks after the General Affairs Council discussion on enlargement.

I recognise that there is concern in the region and, indeed, among some in this House that the UK’s departure from the EU might lessen our commitment to the western Balkans. I reassure noble Lords that this is absolutely not the case; quite the opposite. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, the western Balkans matter—as he rightly identified—for the security of the UK and of Europe, and that is why we are increasing our engagement in the region. I shall say more about this shortly. I reassure the noble Earl, my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, on the issue of EU enlargement. Irrespective of our departure from the EU, we remain of the view that the EU accession process is important in helping the countries of the western Balkans to become more secure, more stable, more rules-based and, ultimately, more prosperous. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for underpinning and underlining that point. We will continue to support those countries committed to the accession process to meet the necessary requirements. That was the message that the Prime Minister took to the EU-western Balkans summit in Sofia last year, when she reassured EU and western Balkans leaders of the UK’s continuing commitment to promote prosperity, security and stability in the region in the years ahead.

The General Affairs Council two weeks ago, to which I referred, endorsed conclusions on EU enlargement which reaffirmed the EU’s commitment to enlargement as a strategic investment in peace, democracy, prosperity, security and stability in Europe and recognised what has been achieved in the region so far. We welcome these conclusions and played an active role in their drafting. The conclusions, and the Commission’s country progress reports, which were published as part of the annual enlargement package on 29 May, also rightly highlight the significant challenges that remain in the western Balkans and the progress that must be made ahead of accession. My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns raised the particular issue of France and Germany. President Macron is very sceptical about enlargement. He said again this week that that was his view. On the other hand, Chancellor Merkel remains very attached to enlargement. The important point is that the EU has agreed to return to this question in October at the latest. We do not play a leading role in the debate on EU enlargement, but we think that the EU should recognise progress when it is made. For example, progress has been made in North Macedonia.

My noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Collins, asked what was discussed at the European Council. I think that the question was discussed at the General Affairs Council rather than the European Council. As I said, the Commission has recommended that accession negotiations should begin with North Macedonia and Albania. I am not aware of whether my noble friend Lord Callanan spoke during the General Affairs Council debate, but the overwhelming majority of EU member states—and the UK, of course, is one of those countries—were ready to accept the Commission’s recommendation. It was France and one or two other countries that wanted to postpone the discussion until October.

On that tack, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who asked specifically about North Macedonia and its NATO application. I understand that membership was agreed in principle in July 2018. Ratification by each of the member state parliaments is pending, and that will have to be obtained, but I believe that accession is expected by the end of 2019 or in early 2020. The UK will ratify the relevant accession protocol in early autumn this year.

Obviously, the countries of the region must adhere to the core values of the rule of law, fundamental rights and good governance. It is right that rigorous conditionality is maintained, requiring countries to demonstrate a commitment to European values and to meet the necessary conditions before accession. It is clear that the countries of the region all face significant challenges in meeting these conditions, albeit to differing degrees. These challenges are set out in the country progress reports, and I group them into two key areas.

The first is security, from terrorism and violent extremism to serious and organised crime, including trafficking of people, drugs and firearms. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, who raised these important matters, and he is right to do so because, as he observed, they can directly affect the United Kingdom. We should not lose sight of the threat of malign Russian interference. That also has implications for the security of the region, as we saw in the Russian-backed attempted coup plot in Montenegro in October 2016, which was, quite frankly, an outrageous example of Russia’s attempts to undermine European democracy.

The second key area of concern relates to weak governance, corruption and the erosion of the rule of law. Sustained progress is needed to address these issues. Disturbingly, we have seen movement in the opposite direction, particularly on freedom of expression. According to the Reporters Without Borders world press media freedom index, western Balkan countries are ranked among the lowest in Europe. We are deeply concerned about the politicisation of the media, violence against journalists and unbalanced media coverage in election periods.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was pessimistic in his contribution, as to some extent was the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, but let me seek to reassure them. The UK remains at the forefront of work with European and other international partners to address these challenges. The noble Earl also raised this in his contribution. As the Prime Minister announced at the London western Balkans summit last year, we are increasing our spending on the region to £80 million a year by 2021 and doubling the number of UK staff working at our embassies on security-related challenges. The UK’s growing portfolio of assistance is focused on supporting stability, increasing security co-operation and implementing much-needed administrative reforms, as well as enhancing the region’s long-term prosperity. Importantly, the UK is also investing in the region’s law enforcement, rule of law and civil institutions. I need not tell your Lordships how important that is.

My noble friend Lord Ahmad had the opportunity to emphasise the UK’s commitment to the region during his visit to Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina two weeks ago. Two particular priorities for the visit were conflict-related sexual violence and media freedom, both of which will be the subject of major international conferences here in London this year, with the involvement of the western Balkan nations. Your Lordships may be aware that there is to be a media freedom summit this month and a prevention of sexual violence in conflict conference in November. The precise date and the personnel for that are to be confirmed.

This brings me to the Poznan summit, to which a number of your Lordships referred, in particular the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who specifically asked what we have done and what we hope to achieve. The challenges I have talked about will be among those addressed at the next summit of the Berlin process in Poznan later this week. It is to be attended by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Europe and the Americas, Sir Alan Duncan, and, I understand, the Security Minister, Mr Ben Wallace. My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns rightly identified that the Poznan meeting is an important moment to emphasise our enduring commitment to the region and to acknowledge the progress the UK and our partners have made through the Berlin process since our UK summit last year.

That includes progress in three key areas. First, in education and skills, the UK’s £10 million 21st century schools programme is equipping students throughout the region with IT coding skills. Secondly, in security and organised crime, Interior and Security Ministers will take forward the security agenda launched in London and discuss important issues, including improving real-time information exchange between law enforcement agencies, combating modern slavery and human trafficking, controlling the spread of small arms and light weapons and the need to combat corruption and illicit finance. Thirdly, in regional co-operation and reconciliation we are working with the region to take forward the landmark joint declarations on missing persons, war crimes and good neighbourly relations which were signed by the 14 Berlin process leaders in London last year.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, spoke tellingly when he used the phrase “social transformation”. He speaks for us all. That is what we want to see, and we hope that that might be the consequence of the aggregate approach which has been taken in endeavouring to support these western Balkan countries in their endeavours.

In conclusion, the UK remains committed to working with European partners to drive forward reform, embed stability and address shared challenges in the western Balkans. We remain of the view that the EU accession process is important for delivering security, stability and prosperity, and we will continue to support countries committed to the accession process to meet the necessary conditions.

17:26

Sitting suspended.

Publicly Funded Infrastructure Projects

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

17:30

Asked by

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they take to provide Parliament with up to date cost and cost/benefit information for major infrastructure projects to which public money has been committed.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this debate concerning the information that Parliament and the public need about major projects. There is a lot of information around. According to the Treasury-owned Infrastructure and Projects Authority, more than £300 billion-worth of projects are on the go in the MoD and the Department for Transport alone. They are projects with government funding, but there are quite a lot of other projects which some argue should be included in this category, such as Hinkley Point. We should then ask: are they good value for money? Do they fulfil the function for which they were planned? Would there be a cheaper and better way of doing it? Are Ministers keeping an eye on their projects to make sure that they do not go badly wrong?

The IPA is supposed to give Ministers this information, but do they take any notice? The IPA has a successful role in project delivery. It does a great work in collecting and analysing data, looking at the structures of management and risks. As many noble Lords know, it publishes a score-card in its annual report—many noble Lords probably have a copy. It uses a traffic-light system: green means that a project is going well; amber denotes some concern; amber/red signifies:

“Successful delivery of the project is in doubt … Urgent action is needed to address these problems”.


Red is:

“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable”.


There are hundreds of examples. I shall select two successful projects. DCMS’s broadband delivery programme has been green for four years, and the Department for Transport’s management of a search and rescue helicopter contract has been green for five years. Who are the culprits? The MoD earned five reds last year and many amber/reds—I shall not list them. The Department for Transport’s Crossrail programme had five years of green and then it went amber/red. Where is it going to go next? We do not have the latest information, but I expect that it will get rather worse.

What happens to the information that the IPA provides? My worry is that the answer is nothing much. Who challenges Ministers on whether what they want to build is the most suitable solution to a problem? It should be Parliament. One has a fear that many projects become vanity projects. Should the new Astute-class submarines be called the Penny Mordaunt class, or should HS2 be called the Grayling line? We could give all of them names, but it is not a good idea.

I fear that the policy of successive Governments on big projects is to set up a structure which defies scrutiny until so much money has been spent that they argue that it is too expensive to cancel or alter. Then the blame game starts, with those who fear for their future careers trying to jump ship before they are found out. I am afraid that this applies equally to Ministers and officials—who knows what and when?

I shall give two examples. Crossrail 1, a joint TfL/Department for Transport project, was going swimmingly until last summer. It was going to open in the autumn and now it will probably be two years late. We can debate why this has happened. Let us not go into blame game now, but how did the news of the delay and cost overrun not get to the promoters much sooner? We will know eventually, but it is pretty embarrassing for everybody concerned.

HS2 is 10 times worse, not only because its costs are very much higher than that of Crossrail but because the evidence of cost overruns, cover-ups and, I must say, fraud and worse are rampant even before the permanent construction work has started. I will not discuss the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report, which is excellent, because Ministers have promised us a debate on it before the Summer Recess. Many people on HS2 believe that the specification was ridiculously high. It started as a vanity project to get to the northern cities faster. It eventually became a project to create extra capacity on the network, but they did not change the spec.

On costs, the House of Commons Library briefing on 20 June noted:

“A comprehensive breakdown of costs for the full Y”—


of the scheme—

“has not been published since 2013”.

That is six years ago. This was confirmed by the IPA giving HS2 an amber/red category for six years running on a project estimated to cost more than £50 billion on the Department for Transport’s figures. The department argues with me and the cost engineer Michael Byng, who has suggested that it is more like £156 billion, but no one has ever challenged his estimate. The Government just say that they do not recognise it. They have not come up with any alternative, even in front of the Select Committee a few years ago.

I fear that there is a concerted effort by officials and successive Ministers to prevent scrutiny of the costs and programme, to refuse to discuss ways to reduce costs and generally to batten down the hatches over a six-year period for what I think is the single most expensive project on the IPA list. My worry, therefore, concerns, first, the project’s scope. There were many estimates. There are rumours that the estimate signed before the Select Committee was inaccurate. The property requirements for both permanent and temporary works have not been properly estimated. On parts of the engineering, the approaches to Euston, alternative proposals for Wendover, track design and, of course, the engineering and cost implications of very high speeds, came up against officials who would not consider any option offering to reduce the cost. There seems to me to be a strong element of putting your head in the sand, hoping it will all go away. Contractors have signed up to design-and-construct contracts but they cannot make the figures work. That is why we are getting delayed at the moment.

In addition, there have been many staff changes. There is a churn of staff which is disastrous in such a project: get rid of people who know too much or who disagree with the policy and we will keep to the original budget over six years. The Permanent Secretary, Philip Rutnam, was promoted to the Home Office when the original cost estimates were challenged, and David Prout, who was responsible within the Department for Transport for HS2, retired to run an Oxford college. HS2 has had at least four chairmen in that period. The chief executive, Alison Munro, felt able to sign the estimates, knowing, I think, full well that the budget was shot to pieces. She left soon after, as did Beth West and Jim Crawford, who resigned last week. Two whistleblowers, Andrew Bruce and Doug Thornton, who are both highly skilled professionals on property issues, were sacked half an hour before they were due to present their findings on property costs to the Department for Transport’s client board. They were sacked because they refused to lie about property cost estimates.

The last matter here is that Simon Kirby, a former chief executive, was found a job at Rolls-Royce—very conveniently—because he was blamed for awarding £2.7 million of unauthorised redundancy policies to HS2 staff, which I have on good authority was actually used to pay off the whistleblowers. This is a very sad situation, coupled with a culture of secrecy. New Civil Engineer wrote a piece last week saying that HS2 has signed a total of 280 nondisclosure agreements,

“with ‘external parties’ between 2012 and March this year, with 40% of those signed in 2018 alone”.

The department found it more difficult to avoid internal scrutiny by the IPA. One of the senior advisers, Paul Mansell, was embedded in HS2 for a year and reported in a confidential report, which I think everyone now has, that,

“the status of the programme is between Amber-Red and Red”.

I will not go through all his conclusions but they basically say that the project will remain fundamentally flawed unless greater transparency and frankness are provided. Mansell’s report was leaked and the IPA confirmed his findings later.

There is a big problem here. I hope that the new “lessons learned” report from the Department for Transport will put some of these things right, but I believe that other government departments need to take note of what has gone really wrong with Crossrail and HS2 and come up with some solutions to make the new projects a better place.

17:41

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on obtaining this debate today. I am grateful for his forensic dissection of the problems of HS2.

How many of us, when we are having work done on our own property or making a major purchase, fail to take steps to ensure that we are getting value for money and that our money is being sensibly spent? If we are doing that with our own money, how much more important is it when we are spending someone else’s—in this case, taxpayers’ money, with all the present demands on it for important and deserving causes?

HS2 is a totally misconceived project. It was supposed to cost £50 billion but will probably cost in excess of £100 billion and maybe more. Just imagine what could be done with that money if sensibly spent. Recently the TaxPayers’ Alliance did a splendid operation, working out just what it could do with it. That amount of money would seriously transform the rest of our communications network.

When I first came to take an interest in HS2, I could not believe what I discovered. The biggest infrastructure project in Europe had been put together in a totally shambolic way that was guaranteed to produce chaos and failure at the cost of misery to thousands of families and businesses whose lives would be disrupted, and of billions of wasted taxpayers’ money. On 31 January 2017 I asked the House of Lords to put a stop to HS2. It could have done so but sadly I did not receive sufficient support. On my side were two former Permanent Secretaries to the Treasury, the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Macpherson, who surely know the true position better than anyone else.

Today I want to highlight and question the unbelievable bunker mentality of those responsible for HS2, both Ministers—I absolve our present Minister, who is absolutely blameless—and civil servants, who display intransigence, blocked ears and total unwillingness to listen to reason and common sense. Ever since April 2015 experienced transport planners and engineers have been seeking meetings with Ministers to explain their grave reservations about HS2. Inexplicably, all such meetings have been rebuffed. On 14 April 2017 Mr Jonathan Tyler, principal of Passenger Transport Networks in York, wrote to Andrea Leadsom, then Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, setting out all the attempts that had been made to meet Ministers to discuss HS2. I do not have time to give all the details but they include letters to everyone from the Prime Minister downwards.

I quote from the letter:

“On 31 October 2016 a group of 54 people with extensive experience in transport planning, regional economics and railway management wrote to Mr Grayling requesting a meeting to express their concerns … On 2 December 2016 a civil servant in the High Speed Rail Group of the DfT replied saying, ‘I am sorry to have to tell you that the Secretary of State is not available to meet with you to discuss these issues’ … On 8 February 2017 the group wrote to the Cabinet Secretary, the Permanent Secretary of HM Treasury, the head of the Government Economic Service, the Comptroller of the NAO, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons and the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee, expressing our concern that the process of the Bill authorising the construction of HS2 had not allowed a number of significant issues that we and others had raised to be properly addressed. We summarised these issues, asked for them to be investigated and offered a meeting … In early February 2017 the diary manager of Andrew Jones, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the DfT, wrote to Jonathan Tyler saying that his letter to the Secretary of State had been passed to Mr Jones, who, because of the pressures on his time, would be unable to manage a meeting”.


This attitude is both rude and, more importantly, totally unbusinesslike. Not to avail yourself of second opinions from such eminently qualified people on such a massive project is unforgiveable. Meanwhile, HS2 heads for the buffers, with costs and building timescale totally out of control and the Department for Transport sending out what can only be called fairy-tale press releases and Answers to Written Questions.

The good news is that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Amid mounting demands from the Green Party, and the Brexit Party, to cancel HS2, at least one of the candidates for the Conservative Party leadership has promised a review, which will reveal the true position. Although some expenditure has already been incurred and preparatory work undertaken, a notice to proceed has not yet been signed, and will not be for some time. A timely and speedy review will result in a halt to the project, which will give time for the true position to be established; a thorough investigation to take place; sensible, non-governmental advice to be taken at long last; and, hopefully, lessons learnt about how to properly plan and cost major infrastructure projects.

17:47

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for initiating this important debate. It pinpoints our national inability to build big projects successfully. They are almost always dogged by controversy, delay and cost overruns. Why has the “can-do” country of the 19th and early 20th centuries become the “Can we? Can’t we?” country of the 21st. We have a system which takes so long that the approach to the project—if not the project itself—is outdated before we start. The Heathrow third runway is an example of this. It has been kicking around for decades and, in that time, approaches to aviation have changed and we would not invent the project now. There is a very lengthy, cumbersome planning process, with delays to big projects. I am not arguing for public opinion to be ignored, but it should not be beyond us to streamline the system without sacrificing democracy. Above all, there is a system of tendering which incentivises both project sponsors to encourage funders with an artificially optimistic idea of the project and tenderers to minimise costs. This means minimising problems and failing to allow for a realistic level of difficulties encountered during construction.

We deal with these projects piecemeal and efforts to have a joined-up approach to skills have so far failed because we agonise and dither for so long and because government is structured to take the short-term approach. We do not have an integrated approach nor a long-term programme for government, so we cannot get skills co-ordination on a grand scale. I give the example of Great Western electrification. It has cost double what was anticipated, and some major errors have been made along the way. Yet another emerged this weekend: equipment installed in the Severn tunnel is rusting before it has even been used. We have known for more than a century that the Severn tunnel is very damp.

For the rest of my speech I shall concentrate on HS2. I take a rather different view from that of the noble Lord. I call myself a critical friend. I am 100% behind the purpose of the project. I support linking the Midlands and the north and eventually Scotland using a new line created according to the highest standards. The problem is that HS2 has not been good at PR, to say the least. There has been a lot of opposition to the project, some of it local, for obvious reasons, and some of it for entirely misguided reasons. HS2 has entirely failed to inspire us and to answer those criticisms. A country that still reveres Brunel does not feel the same about HS2. Important decisions on the progress of HS2 have coincided with the macho posturings of the two men vying to be leader of the Conservative Party. It has become a kind of virility test to denounce the project.

Conveniently, that fits with the financial hole they are rapidly digging for themselves. All those tax cuts have to be paid for, and HS2 has a very big price tag. It would normally be unthinkable to cancel a project so late in the day, a project that is so well advanced with so much money already spent, but there is nothing normal about the times we live in. There is a very urgent need for HS2 to get its act together and bring its costs under control. The north is already suffering from a lack of trust in politicians. If the Government cancel HS2, they risk a massive backlash, and if they take fright at the cost of phase 1 and cancel the rest of it, all they will have done is to change Birmingham into a outer suburb of London, and the north will not forgive them for that.

If the Government cancel HS2, we will be an international laughing stock, but there are serious criticisms that must be addressed. The Economic Affairs Committee report published in May lists those serious concerns and the solutions to some of them. Speed costs money. The report questions the value for money of building to the highest speeds in the world, especially when a large part of the route will be in tunnels where it is not possible to do very high speeds. It points to the flaws in the cost-benefit analysis, which artificially relies on aggregating up very small time savings per journey. One must question the value of saving five minute on a journey of several hours. The committee also pointed to the elderly surveys on which the cost-benefit analysis relies. They must be updated. Finally, it also questioned the obsession with Euston. Old Oak Common would be an excellent terminus. It is a real regeneration project and is very well placed in a network of rail lines. That is where the terminus should be.

17:54

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I have not made any secret of my support for this great project. For me as a former railwayman and as a resident of the city of Birmingham, it is not just an ethereal paper concept; it is a great contribution to the regional and, eventually, the national economy. In and around Birmingham cranes can be seen all over the place. Values are rising and hundreds if not thousands of jobs have been created. It is not just in the city of Birmingham, of course; between Birmingham and London there are 250 sites where work has already commenced. Almost 10,000 jobs have been created and 2,000 businesses are already benefiting from this project before it has even properly commenced. Incidentally, 98% of those businesses are British.

I respectfully remind those who oppose this project, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, that it is not just ex-railwaymen like me who are in favour; virtually the whole of British industry happens to be in favour of HS2 in its entirety. In June 2019 business leaders including the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and London First published a joint open letter calling on the next Prime Minister to commit to delivering HS2 in full.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley and I have been friends for approaching 40 years now, and I hope we remain so after this debate. We first met when I was an officer —I think I was the chairman—of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Channel Tunnel. In a different capacity, he was an accurate and hard-working paid advocate of that concept. I remind him respectfully that, when completed, the Channel Tunnel cost £4.65 billion, around £12 billion in today’s funds, and was 80% over budget at the time. Although I have listened to him on many occasions, I do not think he pointed out at the time that that great project could and should have been cancelled because it was likely to be over budget.

[Lord Berkeley]

Which great project?

[Lord Snape]

I am referring to the Channel Tunnel.

[Lord Berkeley]

I never said it should be cancelled.

[Lord Snape]

No, I just said that my noble friend did not say it should be cancelled, despite the massive cost overrun—about which I do not remember him complaining at the time, although I might be wrong. Because of the nature of the way that we do business in this country, most of these projects overrun.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, touched on that point during her refreshing and accurate contribution. The fact is that these projects overrun, not just in this country. We have a habit of flogging ourselves and thinking that only we can get things wrong but these great infrastructure projects overrun all over the world. Fly to Berlin and try to land at Brandenburg Airport; building commenced in 2006 and the latest opening date is 2020, although even that is not particularly certain, and it is eight times over budget, yet we are born and brought up on the myth of German efficiency. I do not know whether the German equivalent of the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, is wandering around Berlin shaking his head sadly at the overrun of that project, although I am sure that there are similar gloomy outlooks.

I am not surprised at the noble Lord being a member of a committee set up by the Taxpayers’ Alliance to look into this project, but I am a bit surprised at my noble friend. I have to say to him that I have never been a fan of the Taxpayers’ Alliance. Right-wing self-appointed guardians of the public purse do not normally attract members of the Labour Party so I am a bit concerned and surprised that my noble friend should have agreed, particularly as the organisation produced a brochure about a better way to spend the billions. The picture on the front is of a motorway junction, so there is a bit of a clue to where the Taxpayers’ Alliance would like money to be spent.

I do not think that the doom and gloom that we are seeing about this project is sustainable long-term. In my view it is a great project that should continue and be implemented and opened as quickly as possible. One thing that I never hear from its critics is any alternative, although I hear ethereal stuff about spending the money on “something else”. Let us look at the west coast main line, the area of railway that will get most relief from the completion of HS2. I picked a random hour of arrivals and departures at Euston station. Excluding the Underground, there were 42 trains in and out of Euston station between 10 and 11 am this morning. Three of them went to Birmingham, one through to Scotland, one direct to Glasgow and three to Manchester.

Where will these trains go? These days, it is impossible to modernise a railway system and run trains at the same time. It did not used to be. In my younger days—I confess that I remember the first electrification of the west coast main line—much of the work was done between trains, although there were lots of alternative routes. The Manchester trains went over to Great Central. The brains that run this country decided to close that line, so the trains went on the Midland main line, now closed between Matlock and further north. There are no alternative routes. The Liverpool trains went on the Great Western from Paddington to Birkenhead. That does not exist any more; indeed, part of it is a tramway through my former constituency.

There is no alternative to HS2, and I hope that the gloom mongers, sincere though some of them may be, will have their arguments refuted and that this great project gets the go-ahead.

18:00

[Lord Freeman (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on securing this debate. I must say that I have learned more from him in debates on transport in the House of Lords than I could possibly have imagined before joining. I agree with his analysis to a certain extent. I very much agree with the general approach to HS2 of the noble Lord, Lord Snape. Within the limited time I have available, I hope to return to what he said.

As a Rail Minister, I looked at HS1 in great detail, and I tell the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that it was very difficult constantly to keep up with fresh problems discovered by the contractors. We had to change the route in some cases, particularly near the Channel Tunnel, to accommodate construction and, as far as possible, avoid excessive noise to some of the houses on the route. Changes are almost inevitable, and he is absolutely right to suggest that there should be regular updates by the Department for Transport as projects proceed.

I was deputy chairman of the HS2 Select Committee considering the route as far as Birmingham. We regularly asked for and received information about the cost of changing the route, both to avoid noise and inconvenience and to make the train route as fast and comfortable as possible. I think HS2 will be a tremendous advantage to those travelling north. Birmingham is already assigned as the first major stop, but if there is to be further development of routes across the Pennines, the extension of HS2 will only help that. Given the advance in identifying problems of pollution coming from certain motor vehicles, high-speed trains will do a great deal to provide clean and fast services.

I am bound to point out to your Lordships that, according to the newspapers, Boris is against HS2 and Jeremy Hunt is in favour. My colleagues will correct me afterwards on whether that is true, but it shows that there is still a great deal of debate.

Returning to the purpose of the debate, we owe the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, thanks. It is very important that the department regularly monitors the costs of any major transport project so that Ministers can decide where to make adjustments or amendments to the project—or indeed extend it. That has been a gap in the past, certainly in my experience. A regular flow of information about the actual problems that inevitably occur when you are building a railway line enables Ministers to make decisions to save money or change the route.

I therefore very much welcome the prospect of a high-speed rail link to the north, I am absolutely certain that it will come, and the fact that Jeremy Hunt came out this morning publicly to support it, which I am delighted about, gives me a great deal of confidence. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on securing the debate, which I have enjoyed and learned a great deal from.

18:05

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for creating this debate. This is a subject on which I have some form. Between 1988 and 2000—some 12 years—I was managing director and chairman of London Underground, and over that time I sponsored many projects, which probably all added up to about £6 billion-worth of expenditure. In London Underground, all decisions were subject to cost-benefit analysis. This took account of time for the customers, the environmental impact, the ambience of the railway, the money—both revenue and cost—and safety. The whole process worked well for us, and we refined it over time. In projects up to, say, £200 million, we tended to be able to deliver on time and within, say, 10% of the cost. It works well with incremental improvements—improving a station, buying a new fleet, and so on. However, big projects are different, and my big project was the Jubilee line extension. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, approved it at £2.1 billion but it turned out to be £3.5 billion: some 70% over budget and 21 months late—thank God the benefits were massively greater in reality than in the original projection.

Why are big projects a problem? First, they have not been done before; when we built the Jubilee line extension it was 20 years since we had last done an underground railway line. The projects are so big that you have to have multiple contractors. That in itself is a tremendous overhead, because whatever you say in your contract, you have to integrate them and make sure that they work together. Big projects happen over a long time, and things change over time. One of the things that changes is that you discover problems in the environment you are working in, or perhaps the techniques are not there. The other thing about big projects is that their real value tends to be beyond the normal parameters, particularly as regards regeneration. Therefore anybody who tells you that they delivered a major project on time and on budget has cheated.

How can we do better and should Parliament have a role? Two things have happened since I was in that role. First, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority has been formed and produces its annual report; I believe the latest one was on 4 July last year. The second is that the DfT has produced an excellent report, developed with the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, called Lessons from Transport for the Sponsorship of Major Projects. This was developed by Bernadette Kelly, Permanent Secretary at the DfT, and Matthew Vickerstaff at the IPA.

Here I will pause to ask: what you are looking to do with the project? You are trying to get value for money, which means that you are trying to create a total contribution to the general good across the board that is better when compared with total cost. I propose a solution, which seems to have emerged in a couple of speeches, which is that departments, in this case particularly the DfT, should produce an annual response to the annual report of the Infrastructure and Projects Authority. This should cover: the total projected costs that have changed since its last report; the expected date of delivery; a review of the benefits, which will change over time as the world changes; and any changes in scope and any new initiatives—and this should be laid before Parliament.

Having worked in this environment, that will change how people manage and will create a situation where there could be an opportunity for structured scrutiny by, say, an appropriate Select Committee or debates in the House. It would create an internal discipline which would force rigour and better communications within the project. I put my solution to the Minister. I hope she will take it back to the department and perhaps tell us whether there is any warmth for it.

18:10

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to respond to this important debate, and I echo other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on having secured it. At the risk of stating the obvious, there are extreme views on HS2, and we have heard them today without falling out, which is a major concession.

With noble Lords’ permission, I shall set out the Government’s position on major infrastructure projects and the vital matter of transparency, which all noble Lords raised today, before turning to some of the specific points raised. This Government have demonstrated their clear commitment to transforming the nation’s infrastructure. More than 4,900 public and private infrastructure projects have been completed since 2010. We are increasing public investment to levels not consistently sustained in 40 years, including through our £37 billion national productivity investment fund. We established the National Infrastructure Commission in 2015 to provide impartial, expert advice to government. Alongside the spending review, we will publish a major national infrastructure strategy, responding in full to the commission’s landmark assessment of the UK’s infrastructure needs.

It is essential that this significant investment is properly monitored, and the Government take this extremely seriously. Transparency is crucial for accountability, but it is also essential so that the Government can learn lessons when things go wrong and seek to improve in the future. This is a key reason why the Infrastructure and Projects Authority was established in 2016. The IPA oversees the Government Major Projects Portfolio. This includes the Government’s most complex and strategically significant projects and programmes including, but not limited to, infra- structure. As of the 2018 annual report, the GMPP included 31 infrastructure projects with a total whole-life cost of £196 billion.

Large projects in government must undergo independent assurance and pass through a staged process of assurance and approval points before they are given the green light. Those projects on the GMPP also have to provide quarterly data returns, which include up-to-date information on project costs, benefits and timescales and assessments of delivery confidence. This intelligence informs the IPA’s work with government departments to support improvements in the delivery of major projects.

The Government have published clear transparency guidance which sets out how major project data is used and published. The National Audit Office has access to the full body of data, and its analysis supports the work of parliamentary committees in holding government to account. Additionally, committees often seek input from the IPA directly. The National Audit Office also holds the IPA itself to account and has consistently been positive about its efforts while acknowledging the need for continuous improvement and identifying areas for further action. A snapshot of GMPP data is published each year in an annual report. Of course, this is the tip of the iceberg, and the IPA supports departments in properly undertaking projects of all shapes and sizes. As noble Lords will know, Parliament is also able to probe spending through its routine scrutiny of departmental annual report and accounts documents and supply and supplementary estimates. Also, the IPA publishes an annual National Infrastructure and Construction Pipeline, which looks ahead to future public and private investment, and a summary of data on all PFI and PF2 projects. Over and above this, departments also publish relevant information directly, including progress updates, business cases and cost-benefit analysis information.

It is worth noting that the UK Government’s approach to managing, monitoring and providing transparency on major projects, and tracking costs and benefits, is regarded as world leading. Aspects of the Treasury Green Book have been used as best practice and adapted by the G20 and the New Zealand Treasury. We have been invited to share our experience with countries across the globe, from Indonesia and Hong Kong to Australia and Brazil. However, we are not complacent. The recent experience of a number of high-profile projects demonstrates clearly that we still have a great deal of work to do. As in the rest of the world, major infrastructure projects in the UK are prone to escalating costs and increasing timescales. Commercial, technical, political and behavioural factors all play a part in these challenges. The Government are committed to identifying and addressing the causes of these issues. For example, in recent years we have strengthened the way in which the benefits of projects are captured and tracked, to help avoid unrealistic claims—that might get a smile—or skewed decision-making. Having previously called for action in this area, the National Audit Office commended the IPA in a 2018 report for driving improvement in the reporting of monetised benefits for major projects, and for ensuring a clear,

“distinction between cash savings … and wider economic benefits”.

More recently, in response to challenges in the rail sector, the IPA and the Department for Transport have carried out and published an in-depth study to identify key lessons from transport for the sponsorship of major projects. These lessons are now being implemented in the DfT and elsewhere, with oversight from some of the most senior officials in government. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, questioned the time taken to get infrastructure projects through. There is clearly some optimism and short-termism, as she raised. Improving infrastructure delivery will be the focus of our forthcoming national infrastructure strategy, and the IPA is focused on optimism bias as a key risk to project deliverability, cost and timescales. This was a key theme in the recent IPA-DfT lessons-learnt exercise.

The spending review will see a renewed focus on delivery because too often in the past Governments have signed off too optimistic or unrealistic plans for complex major projects. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is carrying out a zero-based review of major projects. As in the past three spending reviews, we will be running a zero-based review of capital spending to maximise the value of our investments. The Treasury will appraise the bids, with the guidance of a panel of independent economists and delivery experts, according to several criteria including strategic case and economic value. We are finalising membership of the expert panel and will communicate this in due course. I am able to tell noble Lords that HS2 is within the scope of the zero-based review.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked why HS2 has been amber-red for the past six years. I apologise if I am stating the obvious: HS2 is one of the Government’s largest and most complex projects. The delivery confidence reflects the overall scale and complexity of the programme. A red or amber-red does not necessarily mean that the project will not be successfully delivered but that sufficient risks need to be investigated. By taking the right steps following the IPA reviews and managing challenge effectively, DCAs are often improved; they do change.

My noble friend Lord Framlingham is consistent and persistent in his position on HS2, and all credit to him for those characteristics. Parliament has approved phase 1 of HS2 following scrutiny by both Houses. HS2 still has strong support in this House and, as I understand it, in the Midlands and the north. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Snape, expressed his support for the project.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said that HS2 costs are out of control. I am advised that HS2 remains within the limits of the 2015 spending review.

I come to the point made by my noble friend Lord Framlingham about HS2 being scrapped. This debate is not about whether HS2 should be cancelled but about how all major infrastructure projects are monitored. HS2 will become the backbone of our national rail network. It will improve capacity, connectivity and growth, carrying over 300,000 people a day. It remains government policy, was a manifesto commitment and retains cross-party support.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her support for the project. It is good to know that local authorities, elected mayors and regional businesses in the Midlands and the north support HS2 and recognise that Northern Powerhouse Rail is dependent on HS2 infrastructure being delivered.

I am going to run out of time, which is common these days in such important debates. If I have not answered anyone’s question, we will review Hansard and I will write to them. I finish my contribution by recalling the words, “a country with a can-do culture rather than a can’t-do”. I hope that, with all the good will and all the commitment there is to make our country a great country to live in wherever you are, these projects will be successful. We will work very hard to make sure that they are.

18:21

Sitting suspended.

Pakistan: Aid Programmes and Human Rights

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

18:30

Asked by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the relationship between their aid programmes and human rights and the treatment of minorities in Pakistan, and in particular the case of Asia Bibi.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, Pakistan’s illustrious and enlightened founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, crafted a constitution which promised to uphold plurality, famously saying:

“You may belong to any religion, caste or creed—that has nothing to do with the business of the State”


and that:

“Minorities, to whichever community they may belong, will be safeguarded. Their religion, faith or belief will be secure. There will be no interference of any kind with their freedom of worship. They will have their protection with regard to their religion, faith, their life and their culture. They will be, in all respects, the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste and creed”.


Tragically, 70 years later, Pakistan’s Ahmadis, Christians, Hindus and minorities, such as the last 4,000 remaining Kalash clinging to a precarious existence in three remote valleys, all face shocking persecution and discrimination.

Last week in Brussels, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, claimed that “individual incidents” of persecution were being whipped up by what he called “western interests”. He said they were comparable to knife crime in London. Try telling that to the two children forced to watch a lynch mob of 1,200 burn their parents alive. Pakistan fails the Jinnah test, not western interests, when no one is brought to justice for the murder of the Christian Minister for Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti. It fails the Jinnah test when 1,000 Hindu and Christian girls are forcibly married and converted. It fails when, in Punjab, Sadaf Masih, a 13 year-old girl, is kidnapped, forcibly converted and married and when, in Sindh, the same thing happened to two Hindu girls. It fails when it ignores the National Action Plan’s requirement to stop anti-Ahmadi sectarian hate propaganda. It fails the Jinnah test when children from minorities are forced to work in brick kilns, workshops, and factories. It fails when Iqbal Masih, an incredibly brave 12 year-old Christian boy, is shot dead for rebelling against enslavement. It fails those minorities who are ghettoised into squalid colonies and forced to clean latrines and sweep streets and, notwithstanding Mr Qureshi’s assertion that “there is no truth” in stories of girls from minorities being sold in faith-led trafficking to Chinese gangs, saying that Pakistan “would never tolerate that”, we have evidence to the contrary.

I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Pakistan Minorities and last autumn, with the co-chair, Jim Shannon MP, and Marie Rimmer MP, we heard horrific accounts of abductions, child marriages, rape and forced conversions and saw first-hand the appalling conditions in the apartheid-style “colonies” where many from the minorities are forced to live. We saw families living in hovels with dirt floors, in shacks without running water or electricity, with little education or health provision and in squalid and primitive conditions, all completely off the DfID radar. Thousands upon thousands of people are condemned to lives of destitution and misery. This left-over from the caste system is graphically illustrated by the case of a boy beaten and excluded from school for touching a water tap. Untouchability remains a curse.

As I asked on Saturday in a letter to the Foreign Secretary, if Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge are to visit Pakistan, will they be visiting one of these colonies and meeting the minorities? Perhaps the Minister can tell us.

There is an old Punjabi saying that he who has not visited Lahore has not lived but, despite its Mogul glories, this is where, in 2016, 75 people, mainly women and children, were killed and more than 340 were injured while celebrating Easter in Lahore’s Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park.

Beyond the killings, everything is stacked against the minorities. Take the case of Asia Bibi, an illiterate Christian woman who was incarcerated for nine years, sentenced to death for so-called blasphemy. In Islamabad, members of the Supreme Court promised our group that Asia Bibi’s case would finally go to appeal, and to their great credit they bravely defied rioters and lynch mobs. She was finally allowed to travel to Canada, although sadly the UK failed to take her. Do not underestimate the bravery of those judges. When Shahbaz Bhatti and his friend Salman Taseer, the Muslim governor of the Punjab, spoke up for Asia Bibi and called for reforms to the blasphemy laws, both men were murdered. Conversely, Mumtaz Qadri, who murdered Taseer, has been lionised and idolised as a hero.

Asia’s case is only one of many. Asia’s cell in the prison at Multan is already occupied by Shagufta Kauser, another illiterate Christian woman. She and her disabled husband, both unable to read or write, face execution for allegedly sending blasphemous texts in English. By some estimates, more than 70 people are currently on death row for alleged blasphemy crimes. What recent representations have we made about Shagufta Kauser and the need to reform laws that frequently target minorities?

In 2016, after seeing fleeing Christians and Ahmadis caged like animals in detention centres, which my noble friend Lady Cox has also visited, I chaired an inquiry on behalf of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of Religion or Belief, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, who is here today. Our report catalogued systematic persecution and the failure of Home Office country guidance to recognise the nature of this persecution. We concluded that,

“we need to dispense with the fiction that the … minorities are treated fairly and justly. There is outright persecution and we should not hesitate in saying so”.

Following the Sri Lanka Easter bombings, some of those escapees now face even greater danger. In 2016 we recommended that Home Office interviewers, caseworkers and presenting officers needed better training in understanding that persecution. The report also urged DfID to ensure that overseas aid is provided in Pakistan only to recipients able to demonstrate their commitment to upholding Pakistan’s international human rights obligations, not least Article 18 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the right to believe, not to believe, or to change your belief.

Over the past decade, £2.6 billion of British aid has poured into Pakistan—on average, that is £383,000 every single day—but failure to differentiate how and where we spend that money leads DfID to say that it has no idea how much of the aid reaches these destitute, desperate minorities. Disturbingly, last week the National Audit Office, after highlighting an example from Pakistan, said that,

“overall government is not in a position to be confident that the portfolio in its totality is securing value for money”.

I welcome the decision last week of the International Development Committee of the House of Commons to conduct an inquiry into British aid to Pakistan. It should also look at the work of Professor Brian Grim on 173 countries, which found that where minorities are respected and religious freedom upheld, that,

“contributes to better economic and business outcomes”,

and to,

“successful and sustainable enterprises that benefit societies and individuals”.

I hope that new Ministers in the department will reassess how DfID spends UK money, why it does not target beleaguered minorities and why it is not made conditional on the removal of hate material from school textbooks and discriminatory adverts reserving menial jobs for minorities. I hope they will insist that the provision of an affirmative action programme, endorsed by the constitution, is implemented.

Pakistan must challenge forced conversions, forced marriage and the prevailing culture of impunity. I took evidence from a man who had escaped from Pakistan who had seen another man and his family burned alive. That man went to the police, who in turn informed the assailants, having told him that he would be next. He and his young family fled the country.

Our all-party group has also been told of widespread and systematic police brutality and torture. We were told about the beatings of victims who were hung by their arms or feet for hours on end, forced to witness the torture of others and, in some cases, stripped naked and paraded in public. Such brutal treatment needs to be investigated by an independent, autonomous national commission for minorities such as that proposed by Pakistan’s Supreme Court in 2014 and established in accordance with the Paris principles.

When the Minister replies to our welcome debate, I hope that we will hear how our Government will work to make these things happen and to create the kind of society envisaged by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, where Pakistan’s beleaguered minorities are at last treated with respect as equals and fellow citizens. I thank all noble Lords who are participating in today’s short but welcome debate.

18:39

[Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing this important debate before us today and for his dedication to bringing injustices across the world before your Lordships’ House.

At the heart of all we do as part of our important role as an international aid superpower must be constant self-evaluation to ensure that our aid programmes are achieving results in the context of each state that we help. At the same time, we must be aware of the important soft power that international aid allows us in improving lives for everyone in any state we help, including minorities. How to ensure that aid is concentrated on those who really need it in any state is a significant debate within the international aid community. This applies especially to minorities, who are often among the most marginalised in any society.

I do not want to repeat in this short contribution the powerful evidence that we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and, as has been identified by the Foreign Office, that Pakistan is currently woeful in its treatment of minorities. From state-sponsored blasphemy laws to the death penalty, we see how a state creates an easy mechanism for the persecution of religious minorities, especially Christians and Hindus.

In Pakistan, most of these minorities are among the third of the population who live in poverty and who should be the very people benefiting from our aid programmes. At the same time, Pakistan is of course an important strategic partner for the UK and a state that receives significant support in aid—more than £300 million in 2019-20. The reassurances that I seek from the Minister are around the direction of that aid.

I applaud the focusing of UK international development on education, especially for girls in Pakistan, to ensure they have as many opportunities as possible. I hope that an educated population would by its nature become more pluralistic and less susceptible to the persecution of minorities in these difficult times. I want to ask the Minister about three specific issues.

First, is my noble friend confident that aid in Pakistan is reaching those minorities within the bottom third who live in poverty? It is essential that any aid be focused on need and not on ethnicity or religion. Secondly, can she reassure me that educational programmes that the UK supports in Pakistan are assessed to ensure that they do not allow bigotry or sectarianism to be taught in any UK-funded educational programme? Thirdly, will she impress on her colleagues in the Foreign Office the need to ensure that we make all possible representations against the misuse of blasphemy laws and the retention of the death penalty?

18:43

[The Lord Bishop of Coventry]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to whom I pay great tribute for securing this debate, I believe that there was a strong case for Asia Bibi and her household to have been offered asylum by Her Majesty's Government. In my contact with the family spokesperson, he was clear that the UK was their preferred destination.

I am troubled by how parliamentarians can hold the Government to account in cases such as this when we are told that live cases are not open to discussion. That sense of dis-ease is reinforced by the absence of evidence of diplomatic activity in the Asia Bibi case before it became an international news story.

Last week, I was speaking to a bishop from south Punjab, who said, “There are many Asia Bibis here”. There are many, too, in interior Sindh who suffer similar plights but do so hidden from the world’s media and Governments, their cases not reported. He described the spectre of blasphemy charges hanging over Hindu and Christian families who speak out against injustice or crime. He spoke of Christian girls being abducted into sexual slavery—in a way which we have already heard about—and then forced to convert, their families powerless to defend them because of the threat of the abuse of blasphemy laws.

The bishop’s deepest concerns—and it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord McInnes—were about the effective denial of education for many children from religious minorities, causing them to descend deeper into permanent spirals of poverty and depression. His account was a graphic illustration of the findings of the 2018 CSW report, which tells of bias, discrimination and abuse undermining the constitutional commitments of the Pakistani Government regardless of religion or caste.

DfID is doing much good work in supporting the general aspirations of the Pakistani Government, but I am not yet persuaded that mechanisms are in place to ensure that our aid is addressing the concerns of the bishop and his people and the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, and the needs of other minority people in south Punjab. The ePact evaluation of phase 2 of the Punjab education sector programme deems:

“Inequities in educational access and attainment are persisting”.


It recommends both that equity of access, including socioeconomic status, disability and gender, are mainstreamed and that systems are devised for assessing the success in doing so. Will this advice be applied to future DfID programmes? Does the Minister agree that that task cannot be done without building in some element of minority community criteria? Is the current programme hitting the spot?

18:46

[Lord Hussain (LD)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate. Pakistan is a big country with a population of 200 million people. Minorities, including Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and others constitute about 3.5% of the total population of the country. There are several hundred places of worship across Pakistan that belong to various religious minorities. Various articles in the constitution of Pakistan, such as Articles 20, 21, 22, 26, 27 and 28, accord rights to minorities as equal citizens of the country, free to profess their religions and visit their places of worship.

Minorities have visible representation in the parliamentary set-up of Pakistan. There are special reserved seats for minorities in all houses of representatives: four seats in the Pakistan Senate, 10 in the National Assembly, and eight in the Punjab, nine in the Sindh and three each in the Baluchistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa assemblies. On top of that, minorities are free to stand in any elections as citizens of Pakistan, and they do get elected.

It is important to mention here that there is a 5% jobs quota in the public sector in Pakistan allocated to the minority communities, which constitute only 3.5% of the total population of the country. Furthermore, 11 August is observed as Minorities Day. There is a special ministry at the federal level, called the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Inter-faith Harmony, which looks after minorities’ rights in the country.

Blasphemy is a sensitive issue in Pakistan. It arouses sentiments among the general populace that have led to death and destruction in Pakistan, sadly. Many in Pakistan believe that their country’s blasphemy law is misunderstood, as if it protects only Muslims. In reality, however, it protects all Pakistanis equally. According to the official figures, the majority, 95%, of those accused under the blasphemy law are Muslims. The maximum penalty under the blasphemy law is death but, as I understand, no one has ever been executed by a court of law under this section. I stand to be corrected.

While I very much appreciate DfID’s support in education, reducing poverty, building resilience and many other important sectors in the poorest areas of Pakistan, will the Minister say what Her Majesty’s Government can do to help the democratic Government in Pakistan and support their endeavours to make the country more peaceful, tolerant and prosperous?

18:49

[Baroness Cox (CB)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for securing this important debate. As he emphasised, the brutal application of sharia law, in conjunction with the failure of the authorities to ensure due legal process, has resulted in horrendous violence. Blasphemy laws have been used by extremists as a pretext for murder. Young girls have been abducted and forced to change their religion or have been forced into marriage. Others are in prison or have been sentenced to death for apostasy.

Countless families have been forced to leave their homeland. For example, as my noble friend said, thousands of Christians have sought asylum in Thailand. They arrive in Bangkok on cheap tourist visas, but as soon as their visa expires they are technically classified as illegal aliens and are subject to arrest and detention in horrendous conditions. Given the plight of Pakistani refugees in Thailand, have Her Majesty’s Government raised concerns with UNHCR about the failure to resettle them in safe countries?

I had the painful privilege of meeting some of the families who had escaped to Bangkok. I sat and wept with those who have endured horrendous suffering. One man, called Cale, was accused of blasphemy in Pakistan. He described how he was arrested by the police and taken to a remote location where he was tortured, hanged upside down, shackled and beaten for seven days. After a month in prison he was cleared of the charges, yet the local mob wanted to kill him. He told me, “They want to punish me with a very painful death such as no one has ever seen before. They want to kill me in a way that the Christian community will always remember”.

I also met a courageous man called Hosea. He was kidnapped by a mob in Pakistan for being an apostate. The mob shackled him with metal chains and attempted to amputate his leg. He eventually escaped with his wife to Thailand, but his relatives in Pakistan are still in danger. He told me, weeping: “Even last week my brother and my 16 month-old nephew were taken captive. They grabbed the baby, repeatedly smashed him into a wall and demanded to know my whereabouts”.

These testimonies are indicative of the wider context of Pakistan’s serious violations of human rights, yet our abject refusal to insist that minorities are prioritised only reinforces Pakistan’s culture of impunity because it gives the impression that the UK does not care when victims are subjected to unspeakable violence. Where is British aid money being spent? Will Her Majesty’s Government specifically tackle the plight of minorities? That includes support for adherents of different religious faiths who suffer at the hands of extremists, including Shia and Ahmadi Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists as well as Christians.

On a related point, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, did Her Majesty’s Government refuse asylum to Asia Bibi because of fear that that would prompt unrest in the UK and attacks on embassies? If that is so, does the Minister agree that such an appeasement of militant extremism indicates a serious threat to our democracy and a betrayal of the fundamental principle of providing asylum for refugees under threat of death?

18:52

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton on securing this important debate, and pay tribute to the wonderful work that he does in the field of human rights.

When India was partitioned in 1947, as we have heard, the founding father of the new state of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, then terminally ill, said that it would be a country that respected all its minorities. He did not live to see his hope tragically ignored. A rigid and intolerant form of Islam, Wahhabism, funded by Saudi dollars, now pervades the country.

Strict blasphemy laws are used to prevent open discussion of religion, and the death penalty can apply to Muslims who try to convert to a different faith. As we have heard, a convert to Christianity, Asia Bibi, sentenced to death for alleged blasphemy, spent nine years on death row before eventually being allowed to flee to Canada. Others have not been so fortunate. In one case, children were made to watch as their parents were burnt alive in a brick kiln. Minorities are frequently allocated menial tasks such as the cleaning of public latrines. Homes of minorities are frequently attacked and women and girls kidnapped and converted or sold into slavery.

I have at times questioned the appropriateness of Pakistan, with its ill treatment of minorities, still being a member of the Commonwealth, a club of countries with historic ties to Britain. Members are required to abide by the Commonwealth charter, with core values of opposition to,

“all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds”.

By any measure, there is a clear case for expelling Pakistan from the Commonwealth, but this will not help its suffering minorities and could make their plight worse. The way forward is to look beyond charters and lofty declarations to clear targets and measures of performance for all erring members—Pakistan is by no means the only one—to nudge them to respect human rights. We must also target aid to specific projects geared to fight religious bigotry and prejudice.

Pakistan is a country revered by every Sikh as the birthplace of Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith. He taught reconciliation and respect between different faiths. In this, the 550th year of the Guru’s birth, the Prime Minister Imran Khan, in welcoming Sikhs to visit the birthplace of their founder, stated his desire to move in this direction, and we owe it to Pakistan’s minorities to redouble our efforts to help him and nudge him to do so.

18:55

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, I was talking recently to a distinguished Pakistan citizen, with businesses around the world. I asked him what life was like in Pakistan at the moment. “Just like here”, he said. “Really” I said, “what about the blasphemy law, and the people suffering under it”? “Oh”, he said, with a rather dismissive wave of the hand, “It’s the uneducated people in the villages”. I am afraid it is all too easy for the elites, whether in Pakistan or this country, to live in an environment divorced from the reality of life for so many. The fact is that the blasphemy law in Pakistan is blighting the lives of countless people, causing apprehension, anxiety and in some cases imprisonment and death. Too many, like the government Minister mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, live in a cocooned world of their own and have shut their eyes to what is happening in the countryside.

As we know, Pakistan is a country with a number of minority groups. Between 0.22 and 2.2 percent of the population are Ahmadiyya Muslims, although they are actually forbidden by law from even describing themselves as Muslims. Some 2.6 percent of the population are Christian, about 2.5 million in all.

Between 1987 and 2017, 1,500 people or more were charged with blasphemy: 730 were Muslims, 501 were Ahmadis, 205 were Christians and 26 were Hindus. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, said, no judicial executions have yet taken place, at least 75 people involved in accusations of blasphemy were murdered before their trials were over, and as we have heard, prominent figures who opposed the blasphemy law have been assassinated. It is this mob violence, so vividly brought home by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, which is so frightening. It affects not just the accused and their family but anyone who stands up for them, especially any lawyer or judge.

We rejoice that Asia Bidi is now safe and in Canada with her family, but we cannot forget the suffering that she had in the years before. We cannot forget that the Minister for Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, who spoke against the blasphemy law, was assassinated as a result. We know that the blasphemy law is being used to settle grievances and vendettas in villages. We look to the elite in Pakistan to open their eyes to what is happening. It is quite wrong for successive Governments to refuse to stand up to religious extremism and intimidation. In negotiations about aid, we look to the British Government to make it quite clear that this law causes untold suffering and is totally unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will take from this debate a clear message that aid needs to be directed towards minorities.

18:59

[Lord Sheikh (Con)]

My Lords, I accept and respect everyone, irrespective of race, colour, creed or caste; I have been brought up in a multiracial community. I have been concerned about the persecution of Christians and other minority groups in different parts of the world, including Pakistan. I have met Muslim and non-Muslim leaders and spoken on this issue at several meetings. I am looking forward to the Bishop of Truro’s final report. I am in touch with the Pakistani high commissioner, who has taken numerous initiatives towards promoting interfaith harmony.

The rights of minorities are protected under the constitution of Pakistan. Articles 33, 36 and 37 provide legal protection to minorities. The Pakistani Government have established legislative measures that promote and protect minorities’ rights. There is political will on the part of Pakistan’s Government to improve the position regarding the rights of minorities. As far as Christians are concerned, Islam considers them as people of the Book, and the Books of Allah include the Holy Koran, the Torah, the Gospel of Jesus and the Psalms of David. It would therefore be wrong to subject Christians to any discrimination.

The problem unfortunately is with certain religious and community leaders who are insular and have their own agenda. It is necessary therefore to change the culture and attitude of these people, and we need to support Pakistan in this regard. I met Dr Shoaib Suddle in the House of Lords following his appointment as the chair of a commission for minority religious equalities. He personally reached out and briefed me and other partners in the UK, earning our support for his proposed activities. He has a long-term programme of work, which will include implementing reforms for the freedom and protection of minorities in Pakistan. This will be consistent with words spoken by Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah in his speech on 11 August 1947:

“You are free. You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan ... We are all … equal citizens”,


as a nation in the state of Pakistan. I very much hope that this vision is now achieved.

19:01

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate. Pakistan has the opportunity to be a great country, but presently its development is limited by an overpowerful military interfering in democracy and a lack of respect for the rule of law and human rights. This is most obvious in its treatment of minorities. As we have heard, 95% of the people are Muslim, and Pakistan has recently created a sense of exclusionary nationalism focused on a definition of Muslimness which has had a dire effect on the status of minority groups, as declared by Minority Rights Group International in 2018.

We have heard that Pakistan was founded on religious tolerance, but recent years have seen the problems of extremism and of minorities being persecuted increase significantly. On human trafficking, the Government said recently:

“The UK Government’s approach to tackling modern slavery … in Pakistan is to reduce the permissive environment through community-based activities and to strengthen legislative and policy frameworks for more effective”,


protection of those affected.

A reasonable question for the Minister is: against a background of worsening religious persecution, what confidence do the Government have that their anti-trafficking programmes can deliver value for money when the structures of the state seem to be undermining them? The Government insist that their aid programmes are blind to religion and are determined by need and need alone. This is for entirely understandable reasons, not least wishing to avoid giving preferential treatment to people of a particular religion, which could easily be viewed as discrimination, but the “need not creed” approach is failing Pakistani minorities. The most marginalised and persecuted groups are most commonly defined by their religion. In Pakistan, blindness to religion is hindering our ability to help. Consider the case of the more than 1,000 Pakistani Christian girls trafficked to China since 2018. The traffickers are specifically targeting Christians, even waiting outside churches with signs promising Chinese Christian husbands. This an example of faith-targeted human trafficking. The UK’s anti-trafficking programme is well established in Pakistan, but if it remains blind to religion it will be less effective as a result. I serve as a trustee of an anti-human trafficking charity, the Arise Foundation. It summarised the problem, that,

“prevention work is most effective when it addresses why people are at-risk. If our aid programmes remain blind to the fact that the faith of these girls is putting them at risk, how can they possibly be effective?”

So I put that question to the Minister today: what steps are being taken to incorporate religion as an indicator of vulnerability in Pakistan? No one wants our aid programme to discriminate unjustly, but if a misplaced sense of political correctness is preventing us from reaching these girls and others like them, I would argue that we need to change our mentality, fast.

I wonder about the apparent blind eye that is being turned. The Pakistan Foreign Minister said last week that there was no truth to the reports that I have just outlined, but I have had a report from a senior official in Pakistan who told me directly that the reports were credible and that 65 Chinese and 16 Pakistani nationals have been arrested already within the ongoing investigations. Can the UK confirm whether it believes the reports or finds that there is evidence for them? I think there is good evidence, as has been said, that we need to target our aid wisely and reset the dial for the strategy of suspending it.

19:05

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate. According to DfID’s development tracker, almost one-third of Pakistan’s population, about 60 million people, live in poverty, 22.6 million children do not go to school and half the population cannot read or write. Moreover, Pakistan carries a high risk of natural disasters—2010 saw the worst floods in its history, killing thousands and affecting 23 million people—and it is a little-known fact that the country copes with the second highest number of refugees in the world.

Given its obvious need and our joint history, there can be little argument about the legitimacy of the aid that Pakistan receives, so long as it is properly audited and adheres to the overarching principle of the UN sustainable development goals that no one is left behind, and that includes vulnerable minorities. I hope the Minister will address the issues raised today.

There is one point about the treatment of minorities that I do not think has been mentioned yet: the prevalence of the problem on a regional level. India’s record is worsening year on year, such that in the world watch list by Open Doors it now ranks in 10th place and the BJP-led Government promote the message that to be Indian one must be Hindu. Myanmar is another case in point, where national Buddhists see any non-Buddhists as unwelcome outsiders, and that includes Muslims, Christians and Hindus. Add to that list Nepal, Bhutan and Turkey, all of whose leaders have found that appealing to national religious identity is a way to boost their power, especially in rural regions. What work are our Government doing on a regional level to promote interfaith understanding and tolerance, particularly in rural areas?

I want to be absolutely clear: I abhor the use of the death penalty wherever it is employed, and utterly condemn the misuse of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan. But is there hope that change is coming? As ever, to enact change, leadership is essential, and the courage of the judges in upholding the acquittal of Asia Bibi is commendable. That took real courage, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has pointed out, given the fate of Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti, two brave politicians who spoke up on Asia Bibi’s behalf and were consequently murdered. Does the Minister believe that the new Government in Pakistan are indicating that they want to change the direction of travel and move away from extremism? If so, that is the vision of Pakistan that we must help to promulgate. It is a geopolitical necessity for us.

19:08

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate. He set out clear evidence of discrimination and human rights abuses in Pakistan.

As we have heard, humanitarian and development support for its people is evident. One-third of them live in poverty, half the population cannot read or write and one in 11 children die before their fifth birthday. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us, Pakistan is the largest recipient of direct UK aid. Part of that ODA is channelled through the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund CAPRI project, the stated aim of which is to increase Pakistan’s capacity to “investigate, detain and prosecute” suspected terrorists. In her letter to me of 13 June regarding my questions on this subject, the Minister wrote that all such projects have robust measures in place to protect human rights and that she was confident that the CAPRI programme has been delivered in a way that is consistent with the UK’s opposition to the death penalty. What are those robust measures? Will the noble Baroness explain exactly what they are tonight?

Last month, the annual review summary for the UK-funded rule of law programme in Pakistan revealed that the full report, which remains undisclosed, accepts that “human rights risks” are,

“a concern which we continue to stress”.

The Government have consistently said that they want UK aid to be more transparent. Will they demonstrate their commitment to this by publishing the full report for scrutiny by Parliament?

I conclude by repeating some of the remarks made by other noble Lords, particularly about the Asia Bibi case. We are all pleased that she has now safely relocated with her family to Canada but, as we have been reminded, there are 17 other cases that do not get the same publicity. What representations have we made to the Government of Pakistan in respect of each of those cases?

19:11

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Sugg) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for tabling this debate, and join the tributes made to him for his work on Pakistan and human rights more widely. I also thank all noble Lords for contributing to this short debate. There has been lots to say and not very long to say it in. I share the concerns that all have expressed about minorities in Pakistan. Nobody should face discrimination because of their religion, let alone the examples we have heard tonight of trafficking, forced marriage, forced conversion or threatened or actual violence. Freedom of religious belief is a high priority for the Government’s work in Pakistan. We raise it regularly at the highest levels of government and support grassroots campaigning with our programmes. We continue to urge the Government of Pakistan to guarantee the rights of all people in Pakistan, particularly the most vulnerable, as laid down in the constitution, highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in his opening speech.

We have heard much distressing testimony and evidence tonight, but there is some hope. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked about the new Government and whether they wanted to change direction. Prime Minister Khan has stated his desire for a more tolerant and pluralistic Pakistan. We welcome his commitments to improve transparency and inclusion. Some progress has been made to date on the passing of a new Child Marriage Restraint Act and the issuing of 3,000 visas to allow Indian Sikhs to make pilgrimage to Pakistan, but there is clearly more to be done, and we continue to support the Government to implement other commitments, including the creation of a commission on minorities, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the Christian divorce bill.

The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord McInnes, the noble and right reverend Lord Harries and many other noble Lords raised the blasphemy laws. We remain deeply concerned by the misuse of those laws, and that religious minorities, including Christians, are disproportionately affected. The harsh penalties for blasphemy, including the death sentence, add to these concerns. The long-term objective is to overturn these draconian laws, which are used not just against minority communities but against Muslims, as the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, highlighted. My noble friend Lord Ahmad raised our concerns about freedom of religion or belief, the blasphemy laws and the protection of minority religious communities with Pakistan’s Human Rights Minister in February 2019. The Foreign Secretary raised those concerns with Foreign Minister Qureshi during his recent visit. We will continue to urge Pakistan to strengthen the protection of minorities, to explain the steps being taken to tackle the abuse of the blasphemy laws and to honour in practice its human rights obligations.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others asked where in Pakistan aid, DfID money, is being spent and whether we are specifically targeting minorities of all faiths. We have a number of programmes which directly target and benefit minorities. Our new AAWAZ II programme will address a range of modern slavery issues, including child labour and forced or early marriage. Our first AAWAZ programme saw great success, holding community forums and peace festivals and supporting a national anti-hate speech campaign. That programme developed early response mechanisms to try to pre-empt some of the violent conflict we have seen and really work on interfaith and intrafaith conflicts and community dialogue.

In the first AAWAZ programme, we specifically developed and disseminated key messages on non-violence and tolerance in communities. We have also funded a survey on women’s well-being in Punjab, including Christians, Hindus and Sikhs, and trained nearly 6,000 people from minority groups through the Punjab Skills Development Fund. As I said, the new AAWAZ II programme is currently under development, and we will ensure that it definitely reaches the people who need it.

Several noble Lords raised the issue of data collection. It is the case that for our bilateral programmes we do not currently have a breakdown by religion. That is not because we do not see the issue of treatment of minorities as important; it is due to the sensitive nature of collecting data. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, highlighted this. There are a number of reasons for this lack of reliable data—sadly, people are reluctant to declare—but we are working proactively to improve this. We recently had some success in collecting more and better-quality data on people with disabilities in Pakistan. We learned from that and will build on it to focus our energy on collecting data from other vulnerable and minority groups. It will be challenging, but we have learned lessons which can be applied to other groups.

We are working very closely with a number of NGOs to help to target minorities, and I agree with the right reverend Prelate that we must do more to focus our programming on minorities. I talked about our AWAAZ programme. That funded four NGOs that work specifically with religious minorities: the South Asia Partnership, Aurat Foundation, the Sarhad Rural Support Programme, and Strengthening Participatory Organization. This made a vital contribution to the programme’s work to raise the voice of poor and excluded people in Pakistan, increase their choices and give them control. As I said, as we develop our successive programme, AWAAZ II, we are looking to identify NGO delivery partners to continue this vital work on inclusion.

I reassure my noble friend Lord McInnes that our development assistance really targets the poor, regardless of race, religion, social background or nationality. We know that those affected by discrimination are likely to be among the poorest. We know, and our NGO partners have confirmed, that our focus on the poorest and most marginalised ensures that we benefit minority groups.

We should not forget, as many noble Lords have said, that being in the religious majority does not prevent many millions of Pakistanis from suffering poverty and its consequences. As has been highlighted, almost a third of Pakistan’s population live in poverty. It is therefore right, and indeed in keeping with Christian values, that we should provide support to people in need, whatever their religious background.

The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, asked about the result of our aid. Since 2011, we have seen real success. UK aid has supported primary education for 10 million children, skills training for almost 250,000 people and microfinance loans for 6.6 million people. We cast a wide net, and justifiably so, but within that net we ensure that minorities receive our help.

My noble friend Lord McInnes asked about education. We have a strong programme of work on education within Pakistan. We have helped provincial governments to review primary curricula and textbooks in English, Urdu, mathematics and science. This has included a reduction in religious content, removal of discriminatory content and the inclusion of new content to promote knowledge, understanding and respect. We have also helped governments to set and implement systems and standards to help remove that discriminatory content. We have trained nearly 100,000 teachers in equity and inclusion and worked with civil society organisations to champion issues of inclusion, but that is a work in progress, and we will continue on that project.

The right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked about the asylum offer for Asia Bibi. The UK Government’s primary concern has always been the safety and well-being of Asia Bibi. We were in close and extensive contact with a range of international partners to ensure a positive outcome, and of course her acquittal and release were good news for all those who campaigned on her behalf.

The noble Lords, Lord Hussain and Lord Sheikh, asked what we are doing specifically to support the Government of Pakistan in this area. We are working with that Government to support projects to tackle child abuse and modern slavery by empowering communities to realise their rights, helping to increase citizens’ awareness of their fundamental rights as enshrined in the constitution and lobbying to reduce the scope and scale of the death penalty. We also supported a national human rights conference in October 2018 to commemorate the late human rights activist Asma Jahangir. That is on top of the wider profile of HMG programmes that seek to counter violent extremism, strengthen the rule of law, improve government services, reduce poverty and deliver education.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, raised the issue of refugees in Thailand. We have raised our concerns with the Government of Thailand about the detention of foreign nationals seeking refugee status, including of course the nationals of Pakistan. We have repeatedly urged Thailand to sign the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees and have closely followed the detention of around 100 people, mainly from Pakistan, in October last year. We do not believe that those actions were aimed at a specific group or groups but apply to anyone deemed an illegal visa overstayer. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees is working very closely with the Royal Thai Government on asylum and resettlement issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Singh, raised the issue of the importance of the Commonwealth. That is an organisation where we have a strong voice, and we should continue to take action on freedom of religion and belief. DfID works closely with the FCO to raise concerns on freedom of religion or belief with partner Commonwealth Governments. Heads of the Commonwealth have recognised that freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association and freedom of religion or belief are cornerstones of democratic societies and are fundamental to achieving the sustainable development goals. The UK funds the Commonwealth Partnership for Democracy, which is promoting freedom of religion and belief in the Commonwealth during our Chair-in-Office period.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, asked about trafficking and modern slavery. We are deeply concerned about the reports of trafficking, and we continue to urge Pakistani authorities to investigate and take action as needed. As the noble Lord highlighted, our approach is to reduce the permissive environment through community-based activities, but we are also providing support to the Government of Pakistan to tackle modern slavery, including trafficking, more effectively. We recently provided support and advice to enable the recent passage of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2018 and the Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act 2018, which provide a stronger legislative framework for the effective prevention of trafficking. The AAWAZ II programme that I mentioned earlier will address a range of modern slavery issues, including child labour and forced and early marriage. As the noble Lord highlights, there is some deeply concerning evidence that we have seen on that. We will continue to work with the Government of Pakistan on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, highlighted the report by the Bishop of Truro that was commissioned by the Foreign Secretary, and we look forward to its publication. We have seen the interim report, and I think it is going to be a really important piece of work that looks at how we as a Government target our activity on freedom of religion or belief. We very much look forward to that report, which will be released shortly.

There is also the International Development Committee’s inquiry on aid to Pakistan. We look forward to the hard questions that it is going to ask. That will be welcome scrutiny. We work hard to ensure that our aid is targeted properly, but the more conversations such as this and the more scrutiny that we can have, the better, because that will help us to improve.

We actively make the case whenever we can that the most stable societies are those that uphold the right of freedom of religious belief. Our substantial aid programme has helped us to position ourselves as a partner of choice for the Government of Pakistan. That allows us the access to raise these issues at the highest level and to provide advice and assistance to support the implementation of reforms. We have promoted, and will continue to promote, the rights of all Pakistanis as part of our effort to make the best use of every penny of aid to work towards a prosperous, stable and inclusive Pakistan. We should also welcome the royal visit to Pakistan, which will highlight the relationship between our two countries. I am afraid that I do not yet have details of the programme but I know the Foreign Secretary will respond to the noble Lord’s letter in due course.

I understand the frustration that we are not doing more and that we are not moving more quickly; the message tonight has been clear. However, through our programmes, our partnerships and our diplomatic relationships, we target minorities where we can and continue to build the data picture so that we can do so more effectively. I agree with my noble friend Lord McInnes that we must keep our programmes under constant review, and we do so.

I think we are making progress with DfID in Pakistan. We are seeing some positive outcomes. I speak to the team there on a regular basis, and their commitment and diligence on this is clear. We are working hard to identify and reach those most in need in what is a very complex and challenging environment, from both a data and an operating perspective. I know there is more to do on that, but I hope the Committee will recognise the work of the DfID team in Pakistan as we continue to make progress. As I say, it is slow going, but the commitment will continue from both DfID staff and myself to ensure that our aid programmes in Pakistan and indeed elsewhere really reach the people who are in desperate need of our help.

I think I am out of time. I hope I have answered the majority of the questions.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Not mine.

[Baroness Sugg]

Not yours; I apologise. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, raised the issue of the regional picture and what we are doing in rural areas. I will probably follow that up in writing, if that is okay. On the noble Lord’s question, we work to assess and analyse before we start programmes. I will see if I have anything further to add to the letter that I wrote to provide him with more reassurance, but I will have to do that in writing as well, I am afraid.

Again, I thank noble Lords. There has been a lot of interest in this debate as it is an incredibly important issue. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who provides the very helpful service of keeping me updated on the deeply concerning evidence and testimonies on this issue. I hope I have provided some assurance of the work that we are doing and will continue to do. I will continue to work very closely with my noble friend Lord Ahmad, who is the PM’s special envoy on this issue, the Foreign Office and the DfID teams in Pakistan to ensure that with all our programming we help the one-third of Pakistanis who need our help, but also ensure that it gets to the minorities who need it.

Committee adjourned at 7.27 pm.

House of Lords

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

Tuesday 2 July 2019

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Derby

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

14:39

Elizabeth Jane, Lord Bishop of Derby, was introduced and took the oath, supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Homes for Social Rent

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

Question

14:43

Asked by

[Lord Evans of Watford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase the number of homes for social rent.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, a £9 billion affordable housing programme will support the delivery of at least 12,500 social rent homes in areas of high affordability pressure outside London. We are providing the Mayor of London with a £4.8 billion funding package and the flexibility to deliver social rent. The GLA is responsible for the delivery of affordable housing in London. In September 2018, we announced £2 billion of long-term funding for housing associations, supporting the delivery of additional affordable homes, including homes for social rent. Last week, we opened bidding on £1 billion of this funding through Homes England.

[Lord Evans of Watford (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply but, according to independent research, we have a shortage of 3.91 million homes and need to build 340,000 homes per year until 2031—new homes, more quickly and to a more consistently high standard. What are the Government doing to incentivise innovation in the housing sector, and what support is being given to SMEs to challenge current housing issues, using volumetric technology in offsite manufacturing?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right about the challenges that we face. Just this morning I met Mark Farmer, who is heading up the committee that is looking at, and rolling out, modern methods of construction. We are making significant progress. An app has been developed specifically for London but it can be rolled out across the country with minor amendments, which is great news for us all. It covers design, climate change responsibilities and speedy delivery. The committee is making headway on bringing together the standards that we need so that money is advanced by lenders.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the £2 billion put into the not very affordable housing programme falls woefully short of the £14.6 billion per year of capital grant recommended last week by the National Housing Federation and others? Without it, we will continue to see the nearly 40-year legacy of chronic failure to build social, not affordable, housing—a policy that has now driven our most vulnerable into the arms of the most unscrupulous parts of the private sector.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I accept that we need to deliver more social housing. That has been the case for some time, including through the coalition years. However, I point out to the noble Baroness that last year we had the best year of housing delivery overall for 31 years in all but one year, and that is good news for all of us.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

Does my noble friend recognise that social housing has been lamentable for perhaps the last 20 years across all Governments, including the Labour and coalition Governments? Against that background, perhaps I may press him once again to look at new towns and gardens towns to make sure that they have a major element of social housing provision?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his point about social housing delivery. He is right that it has been a challenge for successive Governments. We have delivered 79,000 social homes since 2010, which, it has to be said, is better than the numbers achieved in the previous nine years. In relation to his point about garden villages, we had previously announced 29 and last week we announced another 19. That is significant. It includes providing a special community village for dementia-friendly housing, which again is very good news, and I hope that that will also feed into the discussions that we are having about modern methods of construction.

[The Archbishop of Canterbury]

My Lords, I welcome very much that last answer. In that connection I declare an interest, in that I have set up a commission to look into the housing crisis and the contribution that can be made by civil society and particularly the Churches. It comprises a former Permanent Secretary and a huge number of significant experts. One of the commission’s earliest priorities is to look at how we create communities rather than simply build houses. That means that there is a need for multipurpose community facilities and for looking at the sociological aspects as well as the mere physical construction. Will the Minister undertake to listen to the representations from that and similar inquiries over the next 18 months to two years?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I thank the most reverend Primate very much for that contribution and I certainly give that undertaking. It is not just a question of putting up more housing; it is very important that we create or build on effective communities with the additional housing that we are looking at. That is a challenge. It is at the heart of the garden towns and villages programme and we want to carry that forward.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, this is Rural Housing Week, as I am sure all noble Lords are well aware. Rural housing is extraordinarily important because house prices are higher in rural areas, incomes are lower and a much larger proportion of homes are being sold under right to buy. Some schools are closing and we are getting child-free villages. Will the Minister allow me, at the National Housing Federation’s rural housing conference tomorrow, to say that the Government will indeed prioritise those small village schemes that can make such an immense difference to a community, allowing people to work, live and bring up their families in villages?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I know better than to try to stop the noble Lord doing just that. I am keen to associate myself with that during what, as he rightly says, is Rural Housing Week. We do this already, although I recognise the challenges, having represented a deeply rural area. We do already have rural exceptions and provide weighting for housing developments because of the small and medium-sized enterprises prevalent in rural areas. The noble Lord is absolutely right: we need to do more.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests in the register. Does the Minister support an increase in the number of co-operative housing schemes? If so, what support do he and his department give to local authorities and others to increase the number of schemes year on year?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I know the noble Lord is very wedded to this and I am certainly happy to look at it. If he has specific schemes that he wants me to look at, I will very gladly do that with him. We have to be much more open-minded and diverse in forms of supply across the board. Certainly, the Co-operative movement and co-operative housing have a lot to offer in this regard.

Brexit: Other Policy Areas

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

Question

14:51

Asked by

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that appropriate consideration is being given by all departments to other policy areas alongside the preparations for the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Civil Service has the capacity to deliver policies as prioritised by the Government and to deploy resources appropriately. We are ensuring that we properly resource and deliver on these priorities, such as backing the long-term plan for the NHS with an extra £33.9 billion a year in cash terms by 2023-24, creating record high employment, building more new homes, developing fresh policies to protect the environment and investing record sums in infrastructure.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that response. However, is he aware of the frustration within and outside Parliament about the number of key social issues that are being ignored or deferred because of the emphasis placed on Brexit? I am thinking of Bills on such issues as domestic violence, mental health and social care. When is the Government going to catch up?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On the issue of social care, the noble Baroness will have heard responses from my noble friend who was pressed on the progress of the Green Paper on social care. I cannot add to what she said. As regards Brexit squeezing out legislation, we made it clear at the beginning of the session—which we knew would last slightly longer than usual—that Brexit would be a priority. However, we have so far introduced 63 government Bills, 44 of which have received Royal Assent, and, in addition to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, 10 exit-related Bills are in Parliament or have received Royal Assent. So we have introduced 52 Bills that are not related to exit. It is not the case that Brexit has squeezed out all relevant social legislation.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the capacity of the Civil Service. The Conservatives were keen to reduce Civil Service numbers, did so in 2016 and planned to in 2017. Since then, I understand that they have had to go through some emergency recruiting to bring numbers up to what is needed to handle preparations for Brexit—and in particular a no-deal Brexit—and have not yet started on the number of extra civil servants we will need to staff all the agencies that will have to be created to replace those EU agencies that provided us with shared services. Can he give us some estimate of the additional number of civil servants who have already been recruited and the extra numbers we will need if and when we leave?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I wish I could, but I honestly do not have those figures in front of me. The Civil Service has always had the flexibility to reflect government priorities and move people around from one department to another. At the beginning of the Blair Government, when constitutional reform was a priority—with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and reform of your Lordships’ House—resources were pushed into that. In the 1980s, when we had nationalisation, resources went there. So the Civil Service has the capacity to respond to challenges and, in my view, has always risen to that challenge.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, does the Civil Service have the capacity to respond to all the pledges that are currently being made?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

It would be premature at this stage to cost all the promises that are being made by the two contenders for the leadership of my party. When one of them becomes leader and Prime Minister, no doubt the Civil Service will then present him with a bill. Reality will then move in and difficult choices will have to be made about priorities.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the Secretary of State has acknowledged that the Government do not have what they call the “bandwidth” to deal with social care alongside Brexit. The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has described social care in England as adrift on a “sea of inertia”. Is it not time that the Government did something to put an end to this inertia? I am afraid that the Minister’s response on social care was a bit dismissive in this context.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I genuinely regret it if I sounded dismissive. I have sat through many exchanges on social care and the undertakings given to produce it by a given date. I understand the disappointment of noble Lords that that date has not been arrived at. There was an exchange with my noble friend relatively recently. I understand the urgency. We will produce the social care Green Paper as soon as we possibly can.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, am I the only one to suspect that the complaints about Brexit dragging on, and the damaging implications of that, come from the very same sources as those designed to prevent Brexit ever being brought about? Would the logic of all this not be to get on with Brexit, get it finished and done, close down the Brexit department and get on with the rest of our lives?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Yes. The Government plan to leave the European Union by the end of October and then we will indeed be able to get on with some of the other pressing issues. But I make the point that the Government have been taking action that does not require legislation. We had the Statement yesterday repeated by my noble friend about the 10-year NHS implementation plan. We have had Statements about zero carbon and about a breathing space for those in debt. We have announced 22 new free schools. So it is not the case that pressure on legislation is crowding out important initiatives that drive up the quality of life in this country.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby has just taken her oath, in which defence was twice mentioned. Of course, defence and the security of the realm are the absolute highest priorities of any Government. Yet we are stumbling towards a comprehensive spending review with Armed Forces that everyone accepts are underfunded, and there seems to be almost no debate about it. Does the Minister agree that the amount of time this House has spent debating the most serious matter for any Government is rather small?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

If the noble Lord had joined my party three months ago, he would have been able to vote for one of the candidates who has made a specific pledge on defence expenditure. No doubt he is regretting that he did not take that step.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party has suggested that Civil Service leave during August should be cancelled. What impact does the Minister think that will have on Civil Service recruitment?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

If my party has any members who are civil servants, I think they would be unlikely to vote for that candidate. But the statement was qualified by saying that this would happen only if the Permanent Secretary was unable to give an assurance that all the Brexit preparations had been done; only if that assurance was not given would the threat be implemented. I am sure that the Permanent Secretaries will rise to the challenge.

Displaced Yazidis and Survivors of Daesh Violence

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

Question

14:58

Asked by

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they have taken (1) to support access to justice for displaced people from the Yazidi community in Iraq, and (2) to enable survivors of Daesh violence to return home.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the UK has supported accountability for Daesh crimes in Iraq, including those against the Yazidi community. We led international efforts to pass United Nations Security Council Resolution 2379 in 2017 and to establish the United Nations Investigative Team to Promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Da’esh—UNITAD. We have committed £23.5 million to the United Nations Funding Facility for Stabilization to rebuild areas liberated from Daesh and to encourage the safe, dignified and voluntary return of Daesh victims.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, recent fires in the Sinjar area of northern Iraq have led to significant damage not only to the crops in that area—therefore affecting the decisions of those who might wish to return—but to the mass war graves that are key evidence if there is to be justice for the Yazidi families, many of whom are still living in and around Dohuk. In the absence of a strong system of governance, bringing proper security into this area is proving very difficult. Will the British Government put pressure on the Government of Iraq, with whom they have a good relationship, and other international partners, to ensure that more speed is given to the need for a fresh system of governance in Sinjar, and a stronger security response to these fires and other ongoing issues?

[Baroness Goldie]

The noble Lord raises a vital issue. Security, marginalisation, access, services and jobs are the principal concerns for minority communities. Last week, President Salih met the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, and the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Mr Mohamed Ali Alhakim, met the Foreign Office Minister Dr Murrison and my noble friend Lord Ahmad. We reaffirmed our commitment to Iraq, including in areas such as security, but the noble Lord might be interested to learn that President Salih also discussed with Ministers the work of the Government of Iraq in the Nineveh Plains area to generate a local police force from the local population, so that the Christian community feels safe to return home. There is work happening on both fronts.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister is to be congratulated on the work of Her Majesty’s Government in promoting Resolution 2379 at the Security Council, setting up the investigative team. Can she tell us what will happen next to bring people to justice by, for instance, supporting Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands in establishing—as they have called for—an ad hoc tribunal, so that those who committed crimes against humanity and genocide can be tried?

[Baroness Goldie]

The investigative team has been working hard to collect and preserve evidence of the commission of Daesh crimes before that evidence is lost. It is important that it is Iraq which decides any next steps for crimes committed on Iraqi soil and against Iraqi victims. The UK is clear that those who have fought for or supported Daesh should, whatever their nationality and wherever possible, face justice for their crimes in the most appropriate jurisdiction, which is often in the region where their offences were committed.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

Could my noble friend the Minister say what plans the Government have to protect the rights of religious minorities in the region, such as the Yazidis, through DfID’s programmes?

[Baroness Goldie]

Since 2014, DfID has committed £252.5 million in humanitarian support to Iraq, and that is providing a vital lifeline of shelter, medical care and clean water to millions of the most vulnerable in Iraq, including minorities such as Yazidis. We have also contributed £23 million to the United Nations Funding Facility for Stabilization, which has been helping to stabilise areas liberated from Daesh and re-establish security, basic services and inclusive local governance.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, has the Minister met or heard Nadia Murad, the Nobel laureate and young Yazidi woman, who has written and spoken about the abuse that she has suffered? If she has, does she agree that what Nadia says shows that sexual violence was deliberately used, and should therefore be counted as a war crime?

[Baroness Goldie]

I assure the noble Baroness that I have indeed heard of Nadia Murad and, as the noble Baroness will be aware, the UK is working with partners to develop the Murad code. The code will capture international standards and best practice that Governments, international agencies and NGOs should adhere to when gathering evidence for judicial purposes. I am pleased to say that we will launch the Murad code at the PSVI international conference on 18-20 November.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, picking up that last point, the conference will be vital in raising awareness of the horrendous crimes that were committed, including horrendous sexual violence. Can she give us a commitment that the Government will ensure that first-hand testimonies, particularly of the Yazidi women, are heard at that conference, and ensure that the world truly knows what went on?

[Baroness Goldie]

The noble Lord makes a very important point. I do not have detail as to the format of the conference, but I can certainly make further investigation and I shall undertake to write to him.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that constant armed interventions by members of the Security Council—I refer particularly to Russia, Britain and America—in factional disputes in the Middle East make the refugee crisis there infinitely worse? Does she further agree that it is time to look again at the role of the Security Council and to get some constraints on the way it operates?

[Baroness Goldie]

The noble Lord raises an issue that is somewhat wider than the scripted Question on the Order Paper, but none the less it is an important point. The Government’s view is that the United Nations Security Council is an extremely important body. It might not always work to everyone’s satisfaction, but over the years it has proved to be a forum for very effective action, not least relating to the subject matter of the Question, which, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, led to international efforts to pass at the Security Council the very resolution that is helping desperate people in Iraq.

GP Services in Rural Areas

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

Question

15:05

Asked by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they propose to take to ensure that there is adequate provision of GP services in rural areas.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and in doing so refer to my interests declared in the register.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)]

My Lords, primary and community care will receive at least £4.5 billion more a year by 2023-24. Incentives have been in place since 2016 to attract GP training to hard-to-recruit areas, including rural areas. NHS England is consulting on allowing digital-first practices to be set up in under-doctored areas and everyone will have the right to digital-first primary care by April 2021, which will provide another way for patients in rural areas to access services.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. She might be aware of last week’s Telegraph report, which shows that almost 2,000 villages are at least three miles from their nearest GP practice. That figure would be higher were it not for the fact that rural practices can dispense medicine where community pharmacies are inviable. Will my noble friend take this opportunity to commit today to specific support for rural general practices over and above what is already in the NHS long-term plan, which has a particularly urban-centric focus? I remind my noble friend that we in rural areas are struggling to get 4G, let alone access to digital medicine.

[Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford]

I know that my noble friend, who comes from a family of GPs, has personal experience of this. She raises an important point. We are encouraged that, in the last year, 300 more doctors, 300 more nurses and 700 more staff with direct patient care responsibilities working in general practice have been recruited. HEE has recruited record numbers of doctors into GP training, but we recognise the challenge of recruiting in hard-to-reach areas. That is why we have put in place the targeted enhanced recruitment scheme and we are identifying ways to improve this, such as the under-doctored digital-first practice. We recognise that we need to do more, however, and I would be very happy to meet my noble friend to discuss ways in which we can do that.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is aware that Cumbria is one of the blackspots for recruitment of GPs, with, in many cases, surgeries completely dependent on the odd locum and the good will of the general nursing practitioners. Bearing in mind that there are 19 million visitors a year to the Lake District and the national park, as well as the resident population, this is not a satisfactory situation. Is she prepared to look into the particular problems of GPs in Cumbria?

[Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford]

I am definitely happy to look into the situation in Cumbria, but this is one reason we have increased the funding specifically to primary and community care above the rate of the general increase to the NHS. It is also why we are bringing in incentives for GPs to work together at scale through the primary care networks and why there will be seven new service specifications for this. They will include enhanced healthcare in care homes, personalised care and supporting early care diagnosis, but also local action to tackle inequalities. This will be one of the specific areas for ICSs, which will lead the way we improve social care, as my noble friend Lord Young pointed out in his earlier answer.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister expect there to be at least one doctor in each digital-first centre? If not, how do the Government expect patients to be examined when they need an examination? I do not think a machine will be able to do that.

[Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford]

The noble Baroness is quite right. The digital-first proposals have been launched as a consultation so that we can work out the funding and contract changes to ensure that we get digital-first primary care right. It can mean telephone as well as video consultations, but there would also have to be physical premises in the area to provide face-to-face consultations where necessary.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I speak as a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Rural Health and Social Care. Living now in a city, I know the challenge of rural health provision, but GP services are not just about doctors. They are also about nurses and community workers. Can the Minister comment on the possibility of developing direct access training for district nurses and health visitors?

[Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford]

The right reverend Prelate is quite right. We need to expand the wider workforce to support GPs. One reason this has been such a challenge is the shortage of the wider workforce. That is why there was a commitment in the people plan to recruit 20,000 extra staff—such as physiotherapists, pharmacists and nurses—for GP practices, to ensure that we can provide the support staff for sustainable community services. There is an emphasis on moving towards more community care. That is why the funding has been provided, and why there is such an emphasis on that part of the service.

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, I live in a very rural part of Cornwall. My GP practice is 18 miles away. It struggles to recruit GPs and then to keep them. The proportion of the English population who live in rural areas is 19%—the equivalent of the population of London. Can the Minister explain why very few NHS plans consider rurality, with its high levels of deprivation and loneliness and their associated diseases? Might that be one reason why GPs choose not to work there, or why they do not stay for long?

[Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford]

The noble Baroness is very lucky to live in such a beautiful part of the country, but she is right that rurality has a significant impact on health outcomes. It is considered as part of a number of plans. As for recruitment and retention, these have been part of the plans that the NHS has brought in, particularly for GPs. That is why we have had the recruitment and retention plan for hard-to-reach areas for GPs since 2016. We are evaluating that programme and are still considering it.

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

May I press the Minister, following the earlier Question on housing, on the need for her department to talk to the MHCLG, to ensure that when new-build housing developments come in, there is enough tie-in between health provision and housing? My understanding is that unless the number of houses is more than a certain amount, there will not be any new GP practices, thereby putting much more pressure on existing ones.

[Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford]

My noble friend is right; infrastructure must be in place before there is an expansion of development. NHS England is accountable for ensuring that patients have access to a GP practice, although the commissioning of general practices is delegated to local CCGs. It is an important planning consideration, and must be taken into account when new developments occur.

Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) (Amendment) Bill

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:14

Bill passed.

Hong Kong Protests

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:14

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question in the other place earlier today with reference to Hong Kong. The Statement is as follows:

“For a number of weeks now, the world has been watching massive, yet largely peaceful, protests in Hong Kong, in opposition to the proposed extradition legislation. Unfortunately, a small number of protesters chose to vandalise the premises of the Legislative Council yesterday. Her Majesty’s Government strongly condemn any such violence, but also understand the deep-seated concerns that people in Hong Kong have about their rights and freedoms. Of the hundreds of thousands of people who took part in the 1 July march yesterday, the vast majority did so in a peaceful and lawful manner.

The United Kingdom is fully committed to upholding Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and rights and freedoms under the ‘one country, two systems’ principle, which is guaranteed by the legally binding joint declaration of 1984. We reject the Chinese Government’s assertion that the joint declaration is an historic document, by which they mean it is no longer valid and that our rights and obligations under that treaty have ended. Our clear view is that the Sino-British joint declaration of 1984 obliges the Chinese Government to uphold Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and its rights and freedoms, and we call on the Chinese Government to do so.

In respect of the recent demonstrations, the main responsibility for addressing this tension rests with the Government of Hong Kong, including the Chief Executive”.

15:16

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Statement. I welcome the acknowledgement by the Government that they reject the notion by the Chinese Government that the agreement is a historic document, but yesterday’s editorial in the state-run China Daily said that Hong Kong is an “inalienable” part of China and that its affairs concern China only. There is no doubt that China appears to be moving to a ‘one country, one system’ position, using these incidents to tighten its grip on Hong Kong. Will the noble Baroness outline what the next steps are for this Government in terms of upholding our obligation to that legally binding agreement? We need to hear more than simply kind words. The people of Hong Kong deserve better.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I make it clear that the joint declaration remains as valid today as it did when it was signed over 35 years ago. It is a legally binding international treaty registered with the United Nations. We do not want to become hysterical. We do not consider that recent events represent a breach of the joint declaration. Having said that, we expect China to uphold that declaration. It is legally binding until 2047, and we would pursue a breach bilaterally if such a breach were to occur. We are perfectly clear about the status of that joint declaration, and we are perfectly clear that it endures until 2047.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness said there has been no breach, but if you look at the statement from the Chinese foreign ministry, it must give her pause for thought. The spokesperson said that the joint declaration resolved the Hong Kong issue, that Hong Kong had been returned to the motherland, that China resumed sovereignty over Hong Kong on 1 July 1997, that the UK no longer has any responsibility for Hong Kong and that,

“Hong Kong matters are purely an internal affair for China”,

that brook no foreign interference. What action, therefore, is the United Kingdom taking to ensure that this treaty, which is lodged at the UN, is upheld? Does she think that, in the wider context of the situation in Hong Kong, it becomes even more important that we work with our EU colleagues on this matter and that we support multilateral organisations such as the UN?

[Baroness Goldie]

With reference to the last part of the noble Baroness’s question, yes of course we do. The United Kingdom is regarded as one of the most significant participants in United Nations proceedings. China’s interpretation of the situation is not one that we agree with. It is an interpretation which is at variance with the facts and the law. What we have done at the most senior level—indeed, the Prime Minister made the point repeatedly to Chinese Vice-Premier Hu on 17 June—is to say that we expect China to abide by its obligations, and we will continue to take seriously our obligations to monitor the implementation of the joint declaration. It is worth observing that we have a relationship with China which is broad and deep, and it brings enduring benefit to both countries. But we have a constructive dialogue and we are clear and direct where we disagree. Above all, our policy on China remains clear-eyed and evidence-based; it is rooted in our values and our interests. We will continue to stand by the joint declaration, and we will make that view robustly to the People’s Republic of China.

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

To what extent does my noble friend the Minister feel that the Legislative Council in Hong Kong is in any sense aware of the depth of feeling among the Hong Kong people? Does she not agree that attending to these concerns is not only in the wider interest but in the interests of China itself?

[Baroness Goldie]

I thank my noble friend for his wise and profound observation. It is clear that the Hong Kong Legislative Council and the Chief Executive were taken aback by the potent sentiment expressed in the recent demonstrations. It is a positive development that they have suspended the extradition Bill, which seems a sensible precaution to take. But my noble friend is quite right that anything which undermines Hong Kong’s future success and prosperity, and hence its contribution to China, inevitably affects China and has an impact on that country. I would therefore have thought that China had an interest in ensuring that Hong Kong remains a prosperous, successful and viable economy, enjoying its strong rule of law and widely acclaimed judicial independence.

[Baroness D’Souza (CB)]

My Lords, will the Government press for an independent, judge-led inquiry into the events in Hong Kong since 12 June, rather than the police-led inquiry that is currently on offer from the Hong Kong legislature? Will that inquiry look into allegations of sexual violence against women perpetrated by the police, some of whom—the senior police—are British citizens?

[Baroness Goldie]

We have urged the Hong Kong Government to establish a robust, independent investigation into the violence during the protests of 12 June, and that is a matter that Hong Kong must properly pursue. The noble Baroness makes important observations, and I am sure that in any independent investigation there will be a wide remit as to the scope of what the investigators seek to ascertain.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that it is unfortunate that the people who broke into the LegCo building and trashed it are actually playing into the hands of the Beijing Government, who will look for any opportunity to interfere in the affairs of Hong Kong if they see lawlessness in place? Would it be right to condemn those and urge people to return to peaceful demonstrations, which were shown to be successful with the withdrawal of the extradition Bill?

[Baroness Goldie]

I thank the noble Lord. There was widespread concern about the violence that took place yesterday, and the Government have condemned it. He is correct that it is unnecessary and counterproductive. There was a lot of sympathy with the broad spread of the lawful protests, last month and yesterday. The majority of people seemed to perform them in a peaceful and lawful manner, which is to be commended. It is perfectly clear that, when people protest in that respectful and law-abiding manner, results can ensue. The noble Lord is quite correct that it is entirely counterproductive for anyone protesting to break the law and think that in some way it advances the cause of the protest.

[The Lord Bishop of Carlisle]

My Lords, may I ask what advice Her Majesty’s Government might give to those from this country intending to visit Hong Kong at this time?

[Baroness Goldie]

We would advise anyone intending to visit any country to take the Foreign Office’s advice and pay attention to what that advice is. Last month and yesterday, there were significant protests of enormous scale, but nothing should detract from the fact that Hong Kong is a successful, prosperous society. It operates under the structure of “one country, two systems”; it has its own distinctive legal system and protection of human rights; it has its own rule of law and an independent judiciary. It will be for people to make their own judgment as to whether they travel there. As I say, for anyone travelling anywhere abroad we always advise double-checking with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, the reality is that there is very little we can do, and we must not make meaningless threats. I commanded the battle group and the amphibious force off Hong Kong during the withdrawal. We had some very difficult incidents with the Chinese which we dealt with talking through back channels and getting agreements with them. Does the noble Baroness not agree that the way we must handle this is very quietly in the background? It seems to me that the Hong Kong police encouraged the violence by not being there, and they want to do that because of the effect they will then get from mainland China.

[Baroness Goldie]

I thank the noble Lord. We try to ensure in our discussions with China that we are blunt, we are direct, we say exactly what we think and China is left in no doubt as to our feelings. He is correct. I think these matters are always better dealt with by dialogue and sometimes behind closed doors.

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

Does the Minister recall that, when the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal was established on 1 July 1997, it made a clear statement that it replaced the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of London as the highest appellate court in Hong Kong after 30 June 1997. Can the noble Baroness say whether the Chinese Government in Beijing ever refuted that statement?

[Baroness Goldie]

I am not aware of that. I am assuming that the Chinese Government are as well versed as my noble friend is in the legal system of Hong Kong. I am not aware of any such refutal of that situation. If I do learn of any such refutal, I shall let my noble friend know.

Problem Gambling

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:27

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for DCMS earlier today in the other place:

“Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to make a Statement about today’s announcement on support for those affected by problem gambling. While we all want a healthy gambling industry that makes an important contribution to the economy, we also need one that does all it can to protect those who use it.

Problem gambling can devastate lives, families and communities. I have met users who have lost more than the UK’s annual average salary on credit cards during one night of gambling online and parents who are now without a child as a result of gambling addiction. Over recent months I have also met representatives from the gambling industry and colleagues from across the House to discuss what more needs to be done. We can all agree that it is best to prevent harm before it occurs, and to step in early where people are at risk. But we also need to offer the right support for those people who experience harm. We have already acted to reduce the minimum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2, from £100. This has reduced the potential for large losses on FOBT machines and has reduced the risk of harm to players and wider communities. We have also tightened age and identity checks for online gambling websites, an important step to protect children and vulnerable people who may be at risk.

Today five of the biggest gambling companies have agreed a series of measures which will deliver real and meaningful progress on support for problem gamblers. This announcement has been welcomed by the Gambling Commission, GambleAware and Gamban. These are companies which, together, represent around half the British commercial gambling industry.

At the heart of this package is a very significant increase in their financial contribution to fund support and treatment. Last year voluntary contributions across the whole industry to problem gambling yielded less than £10 million. Now five operators—William Hill, Bet365, GVC, which owns Ladbrokes and Coral; Flutter, formerly known as Paddy Power Betfair; and Sky Betting & Gaming—have pledged that over the next four years they will increase tenfold the funding they give to treatment and support for problem gamblers. In this same period they have committed to spending £100 million pounds on treatment specifically. The companies will report publicly on progress with these commitments, alongside their annual assurance statements to the Gambling Commission.

Last week NHS England announced it is establishing up to 14 clinics for those with the most complex and severe gambling problems. This includes where gambling problems coexist with other mental health problems or childhood trauma. It has also been announced that the first NHS problem gambling clinic offering specific support for children is set to open. The funding announced today enables a huge boost for the other treatment services that complement specialist NHS clinics and will help us to place an increased focus on early intervention. I know that Members across the House have argued for a mandatory, statutory levy to procure funds for treatment and support of problem gambling. I understand the argument, but of course the House knows that legislating for this would take time to complete; in all likelihood more than a year. The proposal made this morning will deliver substantially increased support for problem gamblers this year.

It may also be said that receipts from a statutory levy are certain, and those from a voluntary approach are not. However, it is important to stress two things. First, these voluntary contributions must and will be transparent, including to the regulator, and if they are not made, we will know. Secondly, the Government reserve the right to pursue a mandatory route to funding if a voluntary one does not prove effective. This is a clear financial commitment from the industry to address the harms that can come from gambling, but this is not solely about spending money: this is a package of measures, spanning a number of different areas, to ensure we tackle problem gambling on all possible fronts.

First, a responsible gambling industry is one that works together to reduce harm and wants customers to be safe, whatever platform they use or however they choose to gamble. The companies already identify customers whose gambling suggests they may be at risk, and they take steps to protect them. Their licences require this, but they will go further. We have already seen the successful launch of GamStop, the multioperator self-exclusion scheme. I am pleased that companies have committed to building on this through greater sharing of data to prevent problem gamblers experiencing further harm.

Secondly, the five companies will use emerging technology to make sure their online advertising is used responsibly. Where technology exists that can identify a user showing problem gambling behaviours and target gambling adverts away from that person, they have committed to using it. More generally, the industry has already committed to a voluntary ban on advertising around live sport during the daytime, which will come into force next month.

Thirdly, operators have committed to giving greater prominence to services and campaigns that support those in need of help. They have pledged to increase the volume of their customer safer gambling messaging; to continue their support for the Bet Regret campaign, which is showing promising early results; and to review the tone and content of their marketing, advertising and sponsorship to ensure it is appropriate. These are welcome commitments and represent significant progress in terms of the support operators give for those impacted by problem gambling. However, as technology advances we need to be even more sophisticated in how we respond. The five companies which have proposed these measures today will be working closely with the Government, charities and regulators so that we can address any new or developing harms.

These are landmark measures and I commend the leadership of the five companies that have put them forward. They are proposals from some of the industry’s biggest companies and I believe it is reasonable for the biggest companies with the largest reach and the most resources to do more and show leadership. The industry as a whole needs to engage in tackling problem gambling, and we want other firms to look at what they can also do to step up.

I repeat: it will remain open to the Government to legislate if needed, so this is not the end of the conversation. We will keep working hard as a Government to make sure we protect users, whether online or in the high street.

There is still much more to do, but today’s announcement is a significant step forward. It means substantially more help for problem gamblers, more quickly than other paths we could take. We must and will hold the companies that have made these commitments to them, and we will expect the rest of the industry to match them. They will change lives for the better and contribute to the ongoing work we are doing to make gambling safer for everyone.

I commend this Statement to the House”.

15:35

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to hear the Statement and thank the Minister for repeating it. I and others will welcome those who have made the commitments that were described in this Statement and recognise that it is indeed a step in the right direction.

I am just back from Birmingham, if I may start autobiographically, from the Methodist conference. Some 25 years ago I was the president of that conference, and I was installed in my office in Leeds town hall. It was the year that the National Lottery was launched, and I was launched into putting the Methodist position on the National Lottery almost from the time I left Leeds. I confessed to myself that it was useless to put what some noble Lords would recognise as a traditional Methodist position on gambling: it was here to stay, it was part of our culture, so where was the room for manoeuvre?

I remember going on television with my noble friend Lady Bakewell on a Sunday evening; I limited myself to two points, which I have stuck to ever since. First, the proceeds of the National Lottery should not be used to spend on programmes that were properly the responsibility of government—they would be extra, over and above. Secondly, since there was a proven percentage—I had the facts at my fingertips in those days—of those who gamble becoming problem gamblers, a levy should be imposed on the National Lottery to deal with the problem gamblers that were going to be produced by that industry. This was directed towards the National Lottery at that time, but why not impose it on all lotteries? Those were my two points 25 years ago; they remain my two points now.

The Statement is good, as far it goes, but we have to recognise that this voluntary levy is simply not producing the goods. My O-level maths, which is where I left the subject formally, in the year that King Uzziah died, suggests that the agreed percentage of the turnover of the gambling industry should produce something like £145 million a year. It produces £10 million. The voluntary agreement is not working. The Statement says that we should be prepared to recognise that what has been proposed is for now, but it will take a year to produce the necessary legislation to achieve the mandatory levy. Let us do what has to be done now, and do the legislation a year hence also. We can wait a year, but we cannot wait for things to happen until we come back and say, “Let’s do it”, because then it will be a year after that. It seems necessary for us to move inevitably towards a mandatory levy.

I know that these figures were given in the other place an hour or two ago, but they are worth repeating. SportPesa, which sponsors Everton, and Fun88, which sponsors Newcastle, gave £50 last year. Both are white labels of TGP Europe. Best Bets gave £5: I have just paid more than that for a taxi to get here. GFM Holdings Ltd gave a pound. What on earth would you get for £1 anywhere these days, even on the high street? Pounds shops are giving up on that one.

We have 430,000 gambling addicts, 50,000 of whom are children—it is just not acceptable. The mandatory levy is the step that we have to take, and I urge the Minister not to just echo his master’s voice from another place in suggesting that because it will take another year it is better to settle for what we have. It is necessary to take the first steps towards imposing a levy now, so that the National Health Service, which picks up the cost of dealing with problem gamblers, can perhaps have—even in a hypothecated way—the proceeds of such a mandatory levy to deal with the problem.

I trust that your Lordships will see this point of view, which makes a lucid and obvious case, and that the body language, if not the words, of the Minister shows that he agrees.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am a member of your Lordships’ Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry Committee.

It is, however, my membership of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Gambling Related Harm that has led me to meet the parents of a number of children who have committed suicide because of gambling. It has given me the opportunity to meet people with mental health problems who have done everything they can to exclude themselves from gambling websites but are still being bombarded with gambling advertisements and free bet offers. I have also met people who have lost thousands of pounds in a very short time because they have been using multiple credit cards.

For far too long, the gambling industry has failed to take responsibility for the harm that it is causing not only to individuals but families and communities. As the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, pointed out, far too many of the gambling companies are failing to contribute even the 0.1% of the gross gambling yield to the voluntary levy for research, education and treatment. This Statement is of course welcome. The commitment by the so-called “big five” is welcome and I congratulate all, in all parts of the House and elsewhere, including Ministers, who have managed to shame some—but not all—of the gambling companies into taking this action.

An increase from £10 million to £60 million for research, education and treatment is of course welcome, but we should put it into context. Just some of the £60 million will be used to help the approximately 430,000 people, including children, with gambling problems, when we know that only 2% of them are getting any form of treatment. That £60 million should be compared with the £40 billion annual turnover of the gambling companies, the nearly £1 billion of government cuts to our public health budget and the annual salary of the boss of just one gambling company: today we are welcoming £60 million, while Denise Coates, the head of Bet365, earned £265 million last year.

The £60 million is welcome but, as the Secretary of State admits, there is much more to be done, and we need to ensure that this is not a cynical ploy by the gambling companies to prevent the Government introducing further regulation. The Secretary of State says that he is not yet minded to introduce a compulsory levy. If we do not have one, how will the many companies that are not party to this deal, and which do not make an adequate contribution, do so? Surely the way forward is a compulsory levy.

Further, what more does the Minister believe needs to be done to prevent problem gambling in the first instance? Does he agree, for example, that we need to do more to ensure that individuals can afford to gamble at a particular level, and that we should ban the use of credit cards for gambling? Does he agree that we need a code of practice for advertising? The industry says that it is keen to have one but has so far failed to come up with the goods. What will the Government do to make sure that we have one?

Should we not also have a system of redress for individuals? I am sure the Minister is aware that, if an individual has a problem whereby, for example, they have self-excluded but are still bombarded with advertisements and therefore lose more money because they are tempted, they can go to the Gambling Commission and report it. The commission will take evidence from them and other such individuals—it may take action against the gambling company or even fine it, as has happened in the past—but there is no redress for the individual because the commission does not act as an ombudsman. At present, all someone can do is go to the gambling company and seek redress or take expensive legal action. Does the Minister agree that we need a proper redress scheme? Today’s Statement is a small step, but it is certainly not a giant leap.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am grateful to both noble Lords. Among the criticism, I think that today’s announcement was welcomed. It is important to reflect on the fact that, whether there is a mandatory levy or not, this is a considerable amount of money in addition to the existing sum.

The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, said that the current voluntary levy does not produce the goods. We agree, which is why we negotiated with the five biggest companies a significant tenfold increase: they have agreed to increase 0.1% to 1% and, in the first four years, to commit a minimum of £100 million to treatment. Providing more money is not the only important thing here; the companies have also agreed to other voluntary things. We hope that noble Lords will accept that this is a big step forward. Of course, many people have talked about a mandatory levy for some time, saying that nothing would happen without one. Today’s announcement shows that something significant can happen; a tenfold increase is significant in anyone’s terms. As I said, this is about not just money but the attitude of the five largest companies, which should be given credit for providing leadership.

I agree that there is an issue with the remaining 50% of the industry. As I said, and as the Secretary of State made clear, we have not taken a mandatory levy off the table. However, the difference between this approach and doing the mandatory levy now is that we will get money into where it is meant to be, which is treating problem gamblers. That is to be welcomed.

The issue of credit cards was raised. We acknowledge the question of whether they should be used for gambling. We are looking at the evidence that the Gambling Commission has finished taking and at what the banks can do in addition to what they currently do, using their data on customers to look at forms of behaviour that their systems tell them might indicate problem gambling.

Today’s announcement comes in addition to the 14 new clinics already announced by the Secretary of State for Health; they are there to treat problem gamblers and addicts. We think that the Statement brings significant benefits. We will observe what happens over the next four years. This is entirely transparent. The companies will say what they do in the annual assurance that they must give to the Gambling Commission, so we can monitor them. We hope that the extra money and action will make a significant difference to what is generally acknowledged to be a significant problem.

15:49

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

I welcome this announcement today, but I notice from a press release from the companies that they see it as a health issue:

“The key priority will be to quadruple the number of those accessing treatment from 2.5% to 10%”.


After four years, 90% of those with gambling addiction problems will still be unable to access help. Surely that cannot be acceptable.

We know from Simon Stevens, the head of the NHS in England, that it looks like it will cost the NHS between £260 million and £1.2 billion a year. This is costing the general taxpayer a huge amount, when the industry, as I have said in the past, is privatising the profits and nationalising the costs. The key issue here is that we have to treat this as a public health issue. I declare my interest as a member of the Select Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry, which is just beginning to do its work. We need to take a fresh look at this. In particular, we have to legislate. All these companies are competing with one another, which is one of the reasons why we have this explosion in advertising; even the “whistle to whistle” ban is not going to stop the logos on shirts and the wraparound adverts that are blazoned all the time. We need to legislate to put these companies on an equal footing and protect the vulnerable, especially the young.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The right reverend Prelate, who has been vociferous in his views on this—I have been on the receiving end for several years—has done good work, but he is overexaggerating slightly. On the increase in the proportion of problem gamblers receiving treatment, we will never reach 100%. They have to agree to be part of it. We have significantly increased the resources available to do it. We had one gambling clinic in the east; another has just opened, specialising in children. We have announced plans to open 14, and today’s announcement is in addition to that. In every other sphere of potentially harmful industries, such as smoking and alcohol, the industry pays taxes and the treatment of people affected by those industries is paid for out of general taxation. The gambling industry pays £3 billion in gambling tax plus income tax and NI. In addition to that, the top five companies have agreed to pay a 1% levy on that to fund treatment. They are producing a large amount of money. Because it will be transparent, we will monitor what needs to be done, but this is a dramatic increase in resources in a very short time and it will make a significant difference.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, betting advertising around televised sport, both live and recorded, has reached saturation point. The dominant sports broadcaster in this country is part of a bigger business that has a sporting and gaming division and it advertises on the platform on which the sport is broadcast. The sports advertisers use sports presenters and sports pundits to advertise, and they advertise live odds on the events that are happening and being broadcast. All this is aimed at—and has succeeded in—blurring the difference between the advertising and the event itself. It all looks like the one thing and it works for them. In this context, therefore, what on earth is expected to be delivered by a voluntary ban on advertising around live sport only during the daytime? What do the Government expect this to deliver in reducing this problem, and why did they agree to it if they did not expect it to make a real difference?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I do not see why the noble Lord thinks that the proposal will not make a difference, but it is in addition to other areas. It works in sync with the fact that there is now agreement to use online technology to target gambling advertisements away from people identified as being at risk of problem gambling. Responsible gambling messaging will be increased and the tone and content of marketing will be reviewed. That is an addition to the previous commitment that the noble Lord mentioned of a whistle-to-whistle ban and the funding of a new multimillion-pound responsible gambling advertising campaign led by GambleAware. We are asking gambling firms to act responsibly. Where they do not, we will continue to talk to them as we have—the results of which have come today. We are not, however, ruling out legislation. We expect change and we expect firms to behave responsibly, but if they do not we will have to take other measures.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I remind the House of my declaration of interest. I just do not understand this—I really do not. I do not think I can be accused of putting forward the Methodist point of view but, given that we have this agreement, why can we not set in train plans for some sort of legislation? That seems sensible. Secondly, given that the chief executive of one of the firms joining in this year paid herself four times the amount of money that the whole industry is putting into this scheme, is the amount sufficient? How do we expect those firms that have not joined in—the 50%—to join in? Is it not necessary to say to them, “You have not joined in voluntarily, so the first thing that will happen is that everyone has to join in up to the level voluntarily agreed”?

I want to see this move on and I ask my noble friend to accept that there is problem gambling, and that we should make gambling more difficult. So why is it possible to gamble on credit? That cannot be right. It should never be possible to gamble on credit. That is the first thing the Government could stop.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

As I said, the Gambling Commission has just finished taking evidence on that very subject and it is something that we will look at. The Secretary of State has indicated that it is an area that concerns him. We have to work on the basis of evidence, but that evidence has been collected and I assure my noble friend that it is an area being considered at the moment.

I just do not think there is any connection between the amount that a private owner of a gambling company pays him or herself and the issue. The issue is: where is the harm to the just under 1% of problem gamblers and how are we addressing it? Today’s announcement means that it will be addressed. Combined with the increase in NHS facilities, it means we are able to do a lot more to help problem gamblers than we have before. The remainder of the gambling industry not among those five big companies will be under no illusions after today. Hitherto, we were told that a voluntary system could not work and today we have increased the amount available tenfold. We will see what the remaining 50% of companies do, but it is much better to get people to contribute the right amount voluntarily than to make regulations for the sake of it. But we will monitor that and regulation will come if it is necessary.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, following on from the presidency of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, of the Methodist Conference, I declare my interest: I became the Minister with responsibility for gambling back in 1995. Indeed, at that time we wanted to deregulate the gambling industry in a reasonable, balanced and gentle way to bring it up to date and more into line with the circumstances we found ourselves in. However, I never thought that we would end up with the situation we have now. The Statement, as far as it goes, is helpful but does not tackle the underlying problems that all of us see day after day as we watch television or go online. We are bombarded with advertising encouraging gambling at all levels. My noble friend talks about problem gambling. It is difficult to assess at what point someone’s gambling habits become a problem. Is it a problem to them or a problem to society? All gambling must have regulation and be responsible. All those involved in producing the gambling industry must be responsible and answer to regulation that the Government must bring up to date—and bring up to date soon.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I absolutely agree, and that is why we are doing so. The industry is regulated by the Gambling Commission, which was set up to do that. One of the licence conditions is that those in the industry should behave responsibly. Having said that, we have made recent changes. It is not just a question of the amount of money spent on treatment, important though that is, but a question of preventing problem gambling in the first place. I accept my noble friend’s point, which is that while the statistics are not perfect and debatable, and the number of problem gamblers small, there is a wider problem to the extent that, even if there are fewer than 1% problem gamblers, they affect a wider number of people, including families, communities and so on. However, the figures are not particularly big in numerical terms and are not, from all the evidence we have, growing; they are under 1%. A lot of work has been done on increasing the preventive element as well, not just treatment. There has been agreement on using new technology to divert advertising away from online gambling. More people are gambling online, so using online technology is a modern response to that.

We want to increase the availability of online messaging to review the tone and content of gambling companies’ marketing. We have launched a modern, up-to-date online system, GamStop, which is not perfect but is making a significant difference. It is a real-time self-exclusion scheme and the results so far have been good. That is in addition to the changes in advertising. The Government have not sat still and done nothing. We understand that changes have been made and that we must monitor the evidence to make sure that we are up to date. As I say, this is not cast in stone and, together with our advisers, the Gambling Commission, we will monitor the situation to make sure that we keep up to date.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

I commiserate with the Minister for having to repeat this embarrassing Statement. Does he realise that it essentially shows that the Government have become the pawns of the big gambling industry? He has said, with the full authority of the state behind him, that the Government are not prepared to move at all to tackle a massive social evil that is wrecking hundreds of thousands of lives, including those of young people who are becoming addicted to gambling in their early and mid-teens, which will then afflict them for life. Instead, the state is relying on the industry that has caused these evils to regulate itself by making paltry contributions, given the overall figures involved in this industry.

The noble Lord started to lose the House when he accused the right reverent Prelate of exaggerating. He made a compelling argument, along with the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about exactly what the social evils are and why the Government should be addressing them. When people come to look back at this massive social evil of gambling, they will equate it with the problems caused by tobacco addiction in the previous generation, when, after huge rearguard actions by the industry involved—particularly on the issue of advertising—the state finally moved. After that, everyone said, “Why has it taken so long?” The big issue that the Government will have to address is: when will they move to end the wall-to-wall advertising that promotes people into gambling? To my mind, that is morally and socially unjustifiable. Until the Government start to move on banning gambling advertising, everything they do in the meantime will seem beside the point.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The noble Lord has made many predictions in this House and we will see whether he is right. If it were true that the present Government were pawns of the gambling industry, they would not have reduced the FOBT limit from £100 to £2.

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister on his comments about technological advances, particularly with regard to what my noble friend said about pop-up advertising. These adverts are insidious. They are made possible by the use of cookies and algorithms, and are directly designed to entrap the people most likely to want to gamble. Can anything be done with the technological advances that he is talking about to prevent that kind of advertising?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I shall not give a technical answer to that but there is technology using cookies and other data to direct advertising and gambling advertisements to certain people. If you can do that, you can also target it away from people, and that is what the companies have committed to do today. Banks and other financial institutions can use data and algorithms to work out when people are getting involved in problem gambling. We are investigating that with the banks and it is something that we would expect them to do. As I said to my noble friend Lord Deben, we are also looking at the use of credit cards in that respect.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

First, following on from that point, can the Minister say whether the Government have had discussions with the gambling industry about the use of algorithms? Secondly, he says that the Government are now looking to the industry to act responsibly and will be monitoring what it does. How long will that period of monitoring last? Thirdly, a Select Committee in this House has been appointed to look at this issue. Will any agreement that the Government reach with the gambling industry inhibit the implementation of recommendations from the Select Committee?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I do not know specifically whether we have directly talked about algorithms. However, I know that we have talked about the use of data, which of course is the food for algorithms. Essentially, whenever you use data and computers to make decisions, you use an algorithm. I assume that is the case but I have not been given the specifics on it. The noble Lord asked for how long the industry will be monitored. We have been clear that there will be monitoring. It happens the whole time. Gambling companies have to give an annual assurance to the Gambling Commission and that will continue on a permanent basis. We will certainly take the Select Committee’s deliberations and conclusions into account, and we may or may not act on them depending on what they are.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, when will the Government review the outcome of the change to fixed-odds betting terminals, which has recently come into force? Will there be a review this year?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I do not know the answer to that but I will write to the noble Lord. The evidence that the Gambling Commission gets will be monitored continually. I shall have to ask whether it will be made public but the commission will certainly look at that. I signed off a Written Answer today about the number of outlets. That of course is significant in terms of the reduction in the FOBT limit, because that was one of the worries that the gambling industry had. It will be interesting to see what happens to the number of outlets. However, I will write to the noble Lord on that subject.

Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

16:10

Moved by

[Baroness Buscombe]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 May be approved.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations amend child maintenance legislation to enable the delivery of the child maintenance compliance and arrears strategy. The new child maintenance scheme was launched in 2012. It is underpinned by the key principle of encouraging and supporting parents to take responsibility for their children’s upbringing. We know that children have better outcomes when their parents work together.

Following separation, we want parents to make private, family-based arrangements for child maintenance where feasible, avoiding state intervention altogether if possible. Where parents are unable to make a private arrangement, the Child Maintenance Service can support them. This can be done by calculating a maintenance liability and enforcing payments where appropriate.

Following staged implementation, the Child Maintenance Service is working well and avoiding the widely recognised problems encountered by previous schemes. This Government now want to build on and make further improvements to the Child Maintenance Service.

Last November, this House approved regulations which closed known loopholes, introduced tough new sanctions for those who evade their responsibilities, and addressed the historic arrears built up under the Child Support Agency. This package of regulations would introduce further measures to support the compliance and arrears strategy. It includes provisions to make deductions from benefit more consistent, improve information-gathering processes and address uncollectable debt. This is alongside clarifications to the calculation and fees regulations so that they better reflect the intent of the 2012 reforms.

I will first explain the proposed changes to deductions from benefit payments. This Government believe that all parents should support their children, irrespective of their financial circumstances. Therefore, where a parent is in receipt of benefit, they should continue to contribute to their children in line with their income. This has been a long-standing feature of successive child maintenance schemes.

Under the current scheme, parents receiving certain benefits are liable to pay the flat rate of maintenance. Where a parent does not make payments voluntarily, the CMS can deduct the child maintenance they are liable to pay directly from their benefit payment. The regulations before you today are designed to make these deductions more consistent, as currently there are different rules governing what can be taken for ongoing maintenance and towards child maintenance arrears.

At present, the Child Maintenance Service can make weekly deductions of £8.40—£7 plus £1.40 in collection fees—towards ongoing maintenance from certain benefits and, at the same time, £1.20 towards arrears from a smaller list of benefits. So some parents have deductions of £8.40 per week whereas others contribute a total of £9.60.

The proposed changes to legislation would enable deductions towards arrears to be made from the same benefits from which deductions can be made towards ongoing maintenance. The regulations also ensure that £8.40 per week is the maximum that can be deducted from a parent’s benefit in all cases. This will prevent deductions towards arrears and ongoing maintenance being taken at the same time, as well as ensuring that deductions towards arrears will be taken only after ongoing liability has been satisfied. These changes send a clear message to parents who fail to pay for their children.

Additionally, the Government are proposing changes specific to deductions from universal credit. The Child Maintenance Service can already deduct £8.40 towards ongoing maintenance from universal credit if the paying parent has no income from employment. The new regulations will allow the service to do the same where the paying parent has earnings, in line with other benefits. This will apply only in cases where the paying parent is liable to pay only the flat rate; that is, based on earnings of £100 a week or less. The collection of maintenance and arrears will be more efficient from parents who are in receipt of universal credit and are also in work. At present, deductions would have to be made directly from their earnings if payments are not made voluntarily. This change introduces a more consistent approach to clients with similar financial circumstances.

16:15

I will now move on to the proposals surrounding protected trust deeds. A protected trust deed is an arrangement in Scots law between a debtor and their creditors. Scots law provides that child maintenance arrears that are covered by the deed cannot be collected once a parent enters into its terms. Currently, arrears covered by such a deed are permanently suspended on the child maintenance computer systems. Although dividends may be received towards arrears while the deed is in operation, once it expires any arrears covered by the deed are legally uncollectable. These regulations will extend the write-off powers of the CMS to cover arrears that are within the terms of a protected trust deed once the deed has expired. This change stops the CMS from holding on to information about uncollectable arrears at a cost to the taxpayer and keeps our legislation in line with that in Scotland, providing clarity to parents.

We propose changes to regulations relating to the powers of entry used by the CMS to access private properties. Sometimes there is a need for the CMS to enter private properties to gather information. These powers of entry provisions allow CMS to gather information to recover arrears, trace a parent, or make sure that the maintenance calculation is up to date and accurate. In 2012, Parliament passed the Protection of Freedoms Act. This Act placed a requirement on all departments to consider their powers of entry and decide whether they were still necessary, and, if so, whether any additional safeguards could be put in place to protect the public from unnecessary intrusion.

With this in mind, the Government are proposing an additional safeguard. This will mean that an inspector will be required to apply for a judicial warrant where they are refused, or expect to be refused, access to premises, or where they cannot contact the occupier. Although the CMS cannot use its current powers of entry to access a wholly private dwelling, it is my belief that this small change would give reassurance to the public that judicial consideration has been given when inspectors request access to dwellings to request information. We estimate that around 20 judicial warrants will be sought by the CMS each year. The occupiers of these premises will retain all the usual rights of appeal available via either the magistrates’ court in England and Wales, or the sheriff court in Scotland.

The next proposed change that I will explain covers improvements to how we gather information. Where there is a need to trace a parent, to decide on the best enforcement power to use, or to calculate a maintenance liability, mortgage lenders and occupational pension providers can be a valuable source of information. To collect information from such organisations, at present there is a requirement for the CMS to arrange for one of its inspectors to schedule a visit to their premises. This can be time-consuming and intrusive for them and costly for the taxpayer. Repeat visits are often needed as the information is not available on the first. We therefore propose to add mortgage lenders and occupational pension providers to the list of persons required to provide the service with information, in writing, on request.

I will now move on to outline a technical change to the regulations, concerning the way in which expenses are taken into account within the maintenance calculation. When calculating child maintenance, the CMS aims to produce a reasonable reflection of what is affordable for the paying parent. Usually, this figure is drawn from the taxable income provided by HMRC. Currently, the income figure given to the Child Maintenance Service by HMRC is supplied after any deductions for pension contributions are made, but before any deductions for non-taxable allowable expenses are made. This means that parents need to notify the service directly to get these non-taxable expenses deducted from their income figure. I am proposing this change to make it clear in law that the income figure that is used to calculate maintenance must be used after deductions for allowable expenses have been made.

In 2014, the CMS introduced collection fees for cases where parents could not agree the transfer of maintenance payments between themselves. These are aimed at incentivising collaboration, and can accrue alongside ongoing maintenance. As with the maintenance liability, they can also accumulate when left unpaid. Collection of these outstanding collection fees can be enforced as if they were unpaid child maintenance. When a parent does not pay their child maintenance liability, and the CMS is unable to collect the debt using its administrative powers, the CMS can apply to court for a liability order.

During a recent liability order application in a Scottish court, the way the sheriff interpreted the regulations meant that the liability order was granted, but did not include the collection fees. In this interpretation, fees would be included in the liability order only where some maintenance payment had previously been made, but would not be included where no maintenance had ever been paid. This creates a clear incentive for greater non-compliance, and is not in line with the intention of the policy. As such, I am proposing a change aimed at clarifying the policy intent. This change will provide the courts with a clear direction on fees when a liability order is sought. In addition, this will support the use of collection fees, helping to incentivise parents to work together where possible.

These regulations are designed to build on the continuing success of the child maintenance reforms. They improve collection measures and information-gathering powers further, and help make child maintenance fairer for all separated parents. In short, these amendments to the regulations ensure that the commitments in the compliance and arrears strategy are fully realised. I commend this instrument to the House.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, clearly, we are in favour of all measures to ensure that children are getting the financial support they need. A large part of this is making sure that both parents contribute to the raising of a child, through official child support or otherwise. According to the charity Gingerbread, child maintenance alone lifts a fifth of low-income single parents out of poverty. Where parents are unequal in income, as is often the case after a separation, it is right that suitable payments for child maintenance are made. It is good to hear of the proposed changes to the Child Maintenance Service scheme, which has been a long, infamous project, causing disastrous circumstances for children and families and costing a great deal in time and resources for all involved, including the Government.

Although we are generally wary over giving powers of enforcement, we are in favour of the proposed changes to inspection. Requesting information from mortgage lenders will cut down on the number and intrusiveness of current inspections. It is important that both parents support their children; the cost of bringing up a child is considerable and generally falls on the mother, who is more likely to be in low-paid, insecure employment. Some 90% of single parents are women, and they are twice as likely to be in poverty as any other group.

However, in recognising and enforcing payments for child support, the Government need to recognise and act on the issues that drive child poverty. For example, the two-child limit, which restricts support to a family’s first two children, is one of the key factors of child poverty, as demonstrated by many recent reports. The benefit cap also hurts families and households with multiple children, or those who live in expensive areas.

I draw the Minister’s attention to the report published last week, All Kids Count: The Impact of the Two-Child Limit After Two Years, produced jointly by the Church of England and the Child Poverty Action Group. This presents detailed and disturbing evidence of this policy’s impact after two years. It is based on interviews with more than 430 families. I urge the Minister and all Members of your Lordships’ House to give the report careful consideration, and the Government to take action on its findings.

I would welcome a new approach by the Government towards child poverty, which is widely acknowledged to be growing. Having said that, I broadly support this statutory instrument.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I have just two quick questions. First, where the recipient who is due to make payment is subject to a benefit sanction, what impact does that have on the amounts that are collectable, as proposed in this order? Secondly, the £8.40 can be an amalgam of the collection fee and the maintenance payment. So far as the government accounts are concerned, how is that split and dealt with?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of these regulations, and all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly my noble friend Lord McKenzie; he always comes up with questions I would never have thought to ask, and they are always excellent. I hope the Minister had thought further ahead than I did—although I see someone running to the Box so perhaps she had not.

I very much agree with the points made about child poverty and the role that child support plays in helping to provide a platform on which single parents can build an income which helps lift their children out of poverty. So we do not oppose these regulations. It is important, wherever possible, that both parents should contribute towards the cost of raising a child after a break-up. An adult may leave their partner but they do not get to leave responsibility for their children.

I accept that the regulations are designed to provide a series of changes and clarifications to make it easier to collect arrears and maintenance payments under the Child Maintenance Service scheme. I will concentrate on a few specific points: the proposal to allow deductions for child maintenance to be made from universal credit where a non-resident parent has earnings and meets the criteria to be eligible for the flat rate; the increase in the amount, plus collection charges, that can go towards paying arrears; extending the scope; and the enforcement points.

The proposal to allow deductions of £8.40 from benefits for arrears in cases where the non-resident parent is no longer paying ongoing maintenance seems sensible. I can understand that for someone on a low income, £8.40 is a lot of money, but it is entirely possible that the single parent on a low income could also be on benefits, and both parents may well have suffered from the cut in living standards brought about by the benefits freeze and the other cuts in benefits. That seems to be an element of fairness that has to be addressed.

It is also very important that non-resident parents are clear that they will be chased for any arrears they owe. I ask the Minister for a broader update on this. She mentioned that we debated some child maintenance regulations last November. At that point the key thing the Government did was to write off billions of pounds of arrears from the old CSA system, and the quid pro quo for that, because we pushed them at the time, was that they would promise to pursue enforcement. This really matters because otherwise there is a moral hazard question. If a message goes out to parents: “If you just hold off long enough and don’t pay, in the end the Government will give in and write it off”, clearly that creates a disincentive to pay the money that should be paid for your children. So it is really important that we do not get back into that question. Ministers made the case in those regulations for a clean break with the old system, but that places a huge onus on them to make sure that arrears do not build up again in the new system.

I looked at the latest statistics and I am a bit worried. Since the new Child Maintenance Service began, a total of £259.2 million of child maintenance is unpaid, which should now be paid through the collect and pay service. That is 11% of all child maintenance due to have been paid since the service began. In the last quarter of last year, only 66% of paying parents using that collect and pay system were compliant; and compliant does not mean that they pay all of it but that they are paying some of it. So only two-thirds who were using the actual statutory system of compliance were paying anything at all. I may have misread those figures, but can the Minister confirm whether that is right? If the figures are right, is she happy with them? If she is not happy with them, how much difference does she expect these regulations to make to that performance?

16:30

The Minister mentioned the Government’s preference for parents making a private arrangement. We have been here before. Mrs Thatcher—as she was then—originally set up the CSA precisely because money was not being paid for children. People were leaving relationships and not paying money for their kids, so it really matters that the system works. Can the Minister tell the House what proportion of separated parents have a functioning child maintenance arrangement in place now, compared with before the reforms the Government brought in? I am worried that making people pay to use the system is going to be a disincentive, and that those who have to pay will struggle to afford it.

I have a few more specific questions. Can the Minister confirm when the deductions from universal credit proposed in these regulations will take place? It was originally intended that they would be introduced only when universal credit was fully rolled out. However, since that day seems to become ever more distant, can the Minister say if this is still the case? I see that during the consultation, at least one respondent suggested that the Government should not wait until universal credit was fully rolled out to bring in these deductions, but should start sooner. In their response, the Government said that they were considering it. Where are we up to on that? I cannot see from the regulations what the start date for that will be.

The other changes seem mainly technical or procedural. I will not pursue those, but I want to say a brief word about the proposal to amend the CMS’s powers of entry by allowing an inspector to apply to the relevant court for a warrant. Can the Minister help me on this? The department has used the 2012 Act to review whether they think the powers are being used appropriately, and whether they are needed. Clearly it thinks they are needed, but the only change being made is that inspectors will be able to seek a warrant to enter premises where they have previously been refused entry. However, in paragraph 7.12 of the Explanatory Memorandum, it seems not only that they may seek a warrant but that they must seek one, if they have been previously refused entry. I realise that we are firmly into geek territory here, but can the Minister say why we are going for “must” and not “may”? Why not leave it to the discretion of the inspector?

Can the Minister also say what evidence there is that this change is needed? What is the problem to which this is a solution? Have there been any complaints about these powers, or is it just that having used the 2012 Act, this was the only thing the Government could find to offer up in light of that recommendation? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Sherlock, for their contributions. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, is supportive of the statutory instrument. We have been working hard since 2012 to ensure that this system is fairer. It is important that, wherever possible, we encourage both parents to support their children.

The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, referred to the two-child limit, which is not actually related to these statutory instruments but I will touch on it very briefly. We are very clear that people should take responsibility and think hard about whether they can afford additional children, in the same way that those who do not rely on the state often make the difficult decision to limit the number of children they have to how many they can afford. It is also important to point out that, although the limit was introduced for children born after April 2017 and the change of policy was notified a good two years earlier, people continue to receive child benefit for as many children as they have.

On the benefit cap, it is very important to note that the cap is lifted when the parents are working a sufficient number of hours. Indeed, a couple with three children have to work only 24 hours a week between them—just 12 hours a week each. The benefit cap is then lifted and they are then in receipt of income equivalent to a net income of £35,000 a year, plus their housing benefit. I think most noble Lords would agree with me that that is generous. This is funded by the taxpayer.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked what happens in cases where the parent has a fraud penalty or is sanctioned and is possibly in financial hardship because of the sanction. Some clients will have a fraud penalty or undergo sanctions while claiming benefits and may be eligible to claim a recoverable hardship payment. If a claimant has a fraud penalty or sanction applied to their universal credit award which is equal to or more than 40% of their standard allowance, the only deductions that can be taken at the same time are arrears of housing service charges or rent and fuel. These are to help protect the claimant and their family from being made homeless or having their fuel supply disconnected. All other deductions cease while the fraud penalty or sanction is being applied, so no child maintenance deductions will be taken. From October 2019, the 40% maximum deduction rule will be reduced to 30%.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on her ordination last weekend. That was very good to see, although it has not put her off from taking time out to ask me some difficult questions.

On the question of write-off statistics, up to the end of March 2019 217,500 cases held on the CSA computer systems with non-paying historical debt had the debt adjusted or written off. Some cases on the CMS system with debt below representation thresholds have also had their debt adjusted or written off. Activity on CMS system cases started later than on the CSA system and the data we need to report on them is not available yet. However, the CSA case load continues to reduce: the number of CSA cases held on CSA or CMS IT systems decreased from 809,000 in December 2018 to 674,00 in March 2019. The reduction in case load is mainly due to the closure of cases with government-only debt—a debt owed to parents of less than a thousand pounds. This historic debt continues to reduce, but the CSA has written to 125,200 parents with care to ask if they want a last attempt to be made to try to collect the debt owed to them.

We have not written off any debt without authority. As part of the case closure process, we brought to account some outstanding payments and activities and tidied up details of some cases. A significant number of CSA cases involved moneys being transferred directly between the two parties, and the case records have been adjusted to reflect this.

In July last year, the Government published their new compliance and arrears strategy for the Child Maintenance Service. This sets out how we are tackling the legacy of the failed Child Support Agency and the steps we will take to prevent arrears accruing at such a high rate again. Where it is cost effective and reasonable to do so, we are offering parents the choice of whether they would like us to make one last attempt to collect their debt. Where the collection of the outstanding debt is not possible or appropriate, we are writing it off. It was a difficult decision—we took some time to come to it because we strongly believe in enforcement—but many of the sums involved were very small. At the same time, it was costing the Government—in other words, the taxpayer—a lot of money to maintain this system and the debt within it. We prioritised the collection of maintenance for today’s children over historic debt where no child stands to benefit. The majority of the historic debt was owed to parents, not the taxpayer.

There was another question on how many parents on “collect and pay” actually pay. In the quarter ending March 2019, 67% of paying parents using the collect and pay service were compliant, up from 60% for the same period in 2018. This includes parents who transferred from the direct pay service having failed to pay their liabilities.

The noble Baroness also asked whether parents would be encouraged to be non-compliant, as they have seen outstanding CSA debt being written off. The write-off of CSA arrears is a one-off exercise and the regulations allowed us to do this only for debt accrued on the CSA schemes. These were historical arrears and this was in recognition that the majority of the CSA debt could not be collected, given its age and the circumstances of the parents. Where there is a possibility of successful collection at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer, we continue to do that. Looking forward, we believe that we are building a better CMS. In this package of regulations, we are making further provision to collect payments and stop arrears like this building up again.

Have we made use of the new enforcement powers? We have started to use the powers from the previous package of regulations, which allow us to deduct from joint and business accounts and disqualify a parent from holding a passport. In these early stages, the new enforcement powers are proving successful, and we continue to monitor their implementation. Where a parent fails to pay on time or in full, we aim to take immediate action to re-establish compliance before enforcement action is needed, but new powers introduced in the 2018 regulations enable disqualification from holding or obtaining a UK passport and deductions from joint and business bank accounts.

Moving on, we are proposing to change our power of entry process so that inspectors must seek a judicial warrant to access premises where they have previously been refused entry or may apply for a warrant to enter premises at which they expect to be refused. Inspectors will also be able to apply for a warrant authorising entry if they are unable to contact the occupier of the premises in advance. A judicial warrant is a safeguard, which will allow occupiers to make representation before a magistrate as to why an inspector should not be allowed to enter, but we expect this to be quite a low-impact change, with the Child Maintenance Service expected to apply for fewer than 20 judicial warrants a year. This change brings us into line with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and we believe that it adds a modest protection in a very small number of cases.

Deductions from universal credit will come into force on the day after the day these regulations are made.

I think that I have covered most of the questions. The fee for an application to the Child Maintenance Service is £20. This is intended to encourage parents to consider whether they really need a statutory scheme case, but it is not so high that it creates an obstacle to entering the scheme. Where an applicant has experienced domestic abuse or is under the age of 19, they are exempt from paying the application fee. It is not our intent to create a barrier of any sort for vulnerable claimants.

These regulations build on our earlier changes as part of the child maintenance compliance and arrears strategy. They will make deductions from benefit more consistent, allow writing-off of unenforceable debts suspended on the CMS systems, improve our information-gathering processes and update the CMS calculation and fees regulations. I commend this statutory instrument—

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down I want to thank her for her kind words. I should perhaps have reminded the House of a now rather historic interest, as a former board member of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission. Can I press her on a couple of questions which I think she did not pick up?

In one question, I was asking whether the Minister was happy with the compliance rate. I think we agree broadly what it is, at 66% or 67% of those paying something. That seemed quite low to me. I wondered whether the Government were satisfied with that and, if not, what difference these regulations might make. The other question I asked was about the proportion of parents who currently have an effective child maintenance arrangement in place, and how that compares to before when there was a more widespread statutory system. Is she able to comment on either of those points?

[Baroness Buscombe]

I would like to take both comments away because those are quite useful questions to ask. Perhaps the noble Baroness and I could pursue them beyond your Lordships’ House, in our continuing to review the system as it is. Thank you.

Motion agreed.

Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill [HL]

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

16:45

A privilege amendment was made.

Clause 1: Rules for an online procedure in courts and tribunals

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

1: Clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out “technical”

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the House for its engagement on this Bill throughout its passage. I will first turn to government Amendment 3 on the topic of paper processors. I thank noble Lords once again for their engagement over recent weeks and commend the constructive discussions that we have had on this topic.

On Report, amendments were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beith; the noble Lord, Lord Pannick; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, to ensure that it was clear in the Bill that the ability to submit paper forms and documents would remain available throughout proceedings governed by online procedure rules, not just at the beginning of the application. I am aware that noble Lords were concerned that people should be able to receive documents from the court in paper form as well as to send them.

Of course, our original government amendment tabled before Report sought to address this issue, but I agreed to go away and look again at whether we could provide additional clarity. It has always been the Government’s intention to ensure that paper processors are available at each stage of the process. We are committed to an accessible justice system which supports the needs of all our users. I hope that our new amendments clarify this to the House.

The new amendments make provision for users to choose a paper option at any time throughout their proceedings, and this includes both the sending and receiving of documents. Our system must be accessible and useful for everyone, and with the Bill as drafted I now think that we have achieved that.

I will now turn to government Amendments 1, 2, 5 and 6. Before Report, the Government tabled two amendments relating to support for users of our online services. The first of these provided that, when making new court rules, the committee must have regard for the needs of those who require support to engage online. The second amendment followed this to ensure that the Lord Chancellor should also have regard for the needs of litigants who require digital support when deciding whether to allow or disallow the Online Procedure Rules. These amendments did, and still do, ensure that rules will be made with due consideration of the support which is in place for those requiring assistance to engage with digital services under the Online Procedure Rules.

I had tabled these further amendments to both clarify the intention and ensure consistency of drafting between the earlier government amendments and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which was accepted on Report. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, places a duty on the Government to provide support for users of the online system. The amendment does not use the word “technical” to qualify this support, and instead requires the Lord Chancellor to provide support to assist those people accessing or who wish to access the online procedure by electronic means, in accordance with the electronic procedure rules. The support will be such as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate and proportionate to assist users to gain greater access to and make better use of online services. The government amendments ensure consistency with that approach. They also underline our intention that users who might otherwise be digitally excluded must have appropriate and proportionate support to assist them to access the electronic services that will underpin the new online procedure.

In addition, there are consequential amendments. Amendments 4 and 7 are minor consequential amendments. Amendment 4 follows on from the insertion in Clause 5(7), by way of amendment on Report in the Lords, which allows the Lord Chief Justice to appoint a judicial member as chair of the Online Procedure Rule Committee. This amendment means that the Lord Chancellor, subject to the concurrence and consultation requirements in Clause 7, may if necessary amend Clause 5(7), as he may amend other provisions in Clause 5.

Finally, following amendment on Report in the Lords, Amendment 7 is consequential to the insertion of Clause 10(3), which requires the Lord Chief Justice’s concurrence before the Lord Chancellor may amend legislation in consequence of, or in order to facilitate the making of, Online Procedure Rules. It allows the Lord Chief Justice to nominate a member of the senior judiciary to give such concurrence. I beg to move.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

I think we are in danger of slight confusion, with too many amendments moved at the same time. This is obviously a mark of the Minister’s enthusiasm for his amendments, which is actually shared by Members around the Chamber, because they are the fruit of the discussions to which he referred. I simply want to say, before it all becomes water under the bridge, how very much I welcome the Minister’s Amendment 3, which fully achieves what I have been trying to do in amendments both in Committee and on Report. This is, as the noble and learned Lord indicated, to ensure that someone who does not feel comfortable with or able to use the online system can participate in the same process using paper, can receive any documents they have to receive and can put in any subsequent documents, not just the initiating documents, on paper, because the Courts Service will scan the documents and provide the necessary copies as well.

I suspect that this is a minority and even a generational thing. When people like me have ceased even to think of engaging with court cases, or are lying beneath the ground, everybody will be online—but that is certainly not the situation at the moment. We do not want the law to be blind to the concerns of those for whom this is a very new kind of proceeding, and one for which they do not have the necessary skills or experience, particularly when dealing with something as difficult as a legal case. So I am very grateful to the Minister for all he has done in this respect and I support this—and indeed his other amendments.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I support not only the amendments to which my name is attached but all the amendments proposed today. Taken with the earlier amendments which the House considered and which the Government have added, this makes for a much better Bill than ever it was. The particular point I wish to emphasise is that, as a result of these changes, the House, and in particular the Government, have recognised the impact of the constitutional reforms of 2005. The emphasis ought now to be recollected whenever there are any proposals to address the way in which the courts system works. Beyond that, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for his personal contribution to the discussions and improvements—and, through him, I thank his team.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I join noble Lords who have spoken in this very short debate in thanking the noble and learned Lord for the way he has approached the Bill. He has sought very clearly to achieve consensus; he has been open to discussion; and he has obviously been persuaded to make important changes. It is something he might like to have a word with other ministerial colleagues about, because it has not always been the case that Ministers have responded so constructively to debates in the Chamber. On this occasion, I am sure that the House will unanimously agree these amendments. Certainly we on these Benches—such as we are this afternoon—will do so.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I wish simply to join in the unanimous praise and gratitude for the Government’s acceptance of those amendments that they have accepted, and their tabling of these amendments today. The Online Procedure Rules are intended to introduce a new and simplified procedure. We were concerned to ensure that litigants who were going to find it difficult to use that procedure, particularly in so far as it was a digital procedure and they would not be using paper means to conduct proceedings, should not be excluded by difficulty from approaching the procedure and should have afforded to them the kind of assistance they would need to handle litigation, without the need for lawyers, under the Online Procedure Rules.

We are particularly grateful for the Government’s acceptance of Amendment 4, which imposes a duty on the Lord Chancellor, as the Minister has explained, to provide assistance or support for digitally excluded people, and these amendments tie in the obligation to have regard to the needs of those people in conducting that litigation. I was particularly concerned about the use of the word “technical” in relation to that assistance, because it seemed to us that that might be unduly restrictive. I am grateful for the excision of that word from the amendments.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister very much, even in relation to a Bill which, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has just said, seeks to reduce the role and importance of lawyers in litigation. I want to add two points. The first is to remind the House that the concerns which the Minister has so satisfactorily addressed arise from the report of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. This confirms the value of the committees that serve this House—I am of course a member of that committee—and reinforces the importance of the non-partisan nature of these committees and the value of the work they do.

Secondly, without in any way undermining the sense of unanimity and gratitude to the Minister, I just remind him that there is one contentious issue which goes to the other place. Your Lordships’ House insisted on amendments, against the wishes of the Government, to what are now Clauses 9(4) and 10(3), requiring the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to use his good efforts to ensure a satisfactory resolution of that issue, as well as all the other issues. The Minister’s role in this Bill has been quite exemplary, and he has done a great deal to ensure that it will leave this House in a much better state than when we started it.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to all noble Lords and all noble and learned Lords for their observations regarding the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, observed, it may be difficult to anticipate the speed with which these online procedures are taken up by individuals, but one is reminded of a character in an Ernest Hemingway novel who is asked how he became bankrupt and replies, “Gradually and then suddenly”. It may well be that we will see a similar development with these digitised procedures.

I note what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, have said. The term “satisfactory resolution” is of course open to interpretation. I observe merely that the extent of permanent constitutional reform anticipated by some of the amendments that passed may not be as great as the noble and learned Lord anticipates. However, we wait to see the reaction in the other place.

Again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the Bill. It leaves this House a better Bill than it came in—I have no doubt at all about that.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Amendments 2 and 3

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

2: Clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert “, in accordance with Online Procedure Rules”

3: Clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
“(6) Where Online Procedure Rules require a person to initiate, conduct, progress or participate in proceedings by electronic means, Online Procedure Rules must also provide that a person may instead choose to do so by non-electronic means.”

Amendments 2 and 3 agreed.

Clause 7: Power to change certain requirements relating to the Committee

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

4: Clause 7, page 7, line 19, leave out “(6)” and insert “(7)”

Amendment 4 agreed.

Clause 8: Making Online Procedure Rules

Amendments 5 and 6

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

5: Clause 8, page 8, line 9, leave out “technical”

6: Clause 8, page 8, line 10, at end insert “, in accordance with Online Procedure Rules”

Amendments 5 and 6 agreed.

Clause 10: Power to make amendments in relation to Online Procedure Rules

Amendment 7

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

7: Clause 10, page 9, line 9, leave out “(4)” and insert “(3)”

Amendment 7 agreed.

A privilege amendment was made.

17:00

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Post-18 Education and Funding Review

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

17:01

Moved by

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

That this House takes note of the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding led by Philip Augar.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who are to participate in this debate. I am very conscious of the knowledge and experience of the Peers down to speak and await all contributions with great interest. It gives me great pleasure to debate this report and the review of post-18 education and funding that it informs, not least because I no longer have to keep noble Lords in suspense about the publication date—“shortly” or “soon” becomes “now”.

I reiterate my thanks to the panel led by Philip Augar for its exceptional work. The panel consulted a wide spectrum of experts and received almost 400 responses to its call for evidence. I also thank all the stakeholders, including colleagues from across the House, who contributed to the review. Alongside Dr Augar were Professor Sir Ivor Crewe, Jacqueline de Rojas, Professor Edward Peck, Beverley Robinson and, last but certainly by no means least, the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, who I am pleased to see is in her place today. On behalf of the House I thank her for her hard work and effort.

Noble Lords will be eager to know what decisions the Government are going to make. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I cannot commit to any decisions here today. But I come in listening mode and am prepared to answer as many questions as I can.

Whatever route a student chooses, post-18 education should set them on a successful path for their future. We recognise that good careers information, advice and guidance are vital to help people of all ages make informed decisions about their options, including routes into further and higher education. That is why we launched a comprehensive careers strategy, as well as investing more than £70 million each year until 2020, to help ensure that young people and adults received high-quality careers provision. Meanwhile, the Careers & Enterprise Company has also invested in more than 150 employer-engagement programmes, benefiting 540,000 young people.

However, it is important to remember that most students in post-18 education are not at university. As Augar emphasised, further education and technical colleges play an essential part in delivering the modern industrial strategy, with its long-term plan to boost productivity. We are all more likely to have multiple careers during our working lives and must be conscious of the need for reskilling and upskilling.

Around 1.5 million jobs in England are at risk of some automation in the future. That is why we are bringing together businesses, workers and government through the National Retraining Scheme, which will help prepare adults for future changes to the economy, including automation. We will also look carefully at the panel’s recommendations on how we can encourage more flexibility across our post-18 system to support people in accessing the right education for them throughout their lives. I share the Secretary of State’s strong belief that both the HE and FE sectors can, and should, continue to thrive together. To ensure a genuine choice for young people, and to give employers access to a highly skilled workforce, we want to see a system where technical education has the same weighting for a young person as an academic route.

I will take a step back and look at how we reached this major review—the first review since the Robbins report in 1963—to look at the totality of post-18 education. As many noble Lords will note, our current system of post-18 education already has many strengths. First, we have a world-class higher education system, with four UK universities in the world top 10 and 18 in the top 100. That is truly to be celebrated. Secondly, we have record numbers of 18 year-olds entering university, including from disadvantaged backgrounds. Thirdly, students from the lowest-income households have access to the largest-ever amount of cash support for their living costs. Fourthly and finally, our student finance system removes up-front financial barriers and provides protections for borrowers so that they have to contribute only when they can afford to do so.

We should not overlook all that we have achieved on the back of the Higher Education and Research Act. The Office for Students became fully operational in April last year and will, inter alia, play a key role in delivering the Department for Education’s objectives to improve and support informed choice through the provision of effective information, advice and guidance to all students. The teaching excellence and student outcomes framework now holds universities to account for teaching and graduate outcomes; I will say more about that later. Finally, diversity and flexibility in the system continue to increase; for example, with possibilities for new providers and accelerated degrees.

We are already reforming technical and vocational education by establishing a technical education system that rivals the best in the world and introducing new T-levels in phases from September 2020, backed by the investment of an additional £500 million per year once they are fully rolled out; developing proposals to introduce employer-focused higher technical qualifications at levels 4 to 5 to rival traditional academic options; reviewing classroom-based higher technical education at levels 4 to 5 as part of creating a world-class system; and, finally, overhauling apprenticeships to put quality at the heart of the programme and to increase employer investment and engagement in training their workforces for the future.

I will now focus on the challenges we face, because challenges remain and parts of the system are not working as well as they could. We have seen further growth in three-year degrees for 18 year-olds but the post-18 system does not always offer a comprehensive range of high-quality alternative routes for the many young people who pursue a technical or vocational path at that stage. When young people apply to university, it is based on the assumption that a degree will set them up for a bright future, but today’s analysis shows that this is not always the case. In universities, we have not seen the extent of increase in choice that we would have wanted. The great majority of courses are priced at the same level and three-year courses remain the norm, when some courses clearly cost more than others and some have higher returns to the student than others. It is right that we ask questions about choice and value for money. Although 18 year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds are now 52% more likely to go to university than they were 10 years ago, they are still less likely than their more advantaged peers to attend the most selective universities or to have the support that they need to complete their degree successfully and achieve a 2.1 or a First.

We have been concerned by the recent large increases in the number of unconditional—or conditional unconditional—offers received by students and the potential impact that these offers can have. We also have concerns about the serious issue of grade inflation. We must not allow the credibility of our world-class universities to be damaged by pockets of low quality. That is why the Secretary of State has tasked the OfS with driving out bad practices which are not in the student interest.

Meanwhile, although the funding system is a progressive one with built-in protections, those elements are not always well understood. Going to university should be a positive, life-changing experience but students need appropriate support, particularly as they matriculate, to deal with the challenges that starting university can include to ensure their well-being.

We have a vision for the future. The UK is truly a world-leading destination for study and research, but we recognise the concerns and that is why we committed to conducting this major review. Studying for a degree is expected to benefit those undertaking it, with improved employment opportunities and a wage premium alongside wider individual well-being and other social benefits. Low-value outcomes are not just about economic returns. High-quality provision in a range of subjects is critical for our public services and for culturally enriching our society. University is not just for investment bankers but for those who will go on to contribute to many other sectors, including our creative industries. We want to ensure that higher education improves the life of students and of wider society and we want to equip students with the information to make the right choice for them about where and what to study. Now our graduate data—commonly known as LEO—represents a step change in our ability to understand students’ labour market outcomes on leaving higher education.

Before I conclude, I want to draw attention to a recent announcement by the OfS. It has awarded £6 million for 10 large-scale projects to encourage higher education providers to find new ways of combating student mental health issues. These projects involve more than 60 different universities, colleges and other organisations, including NHS services, the police and charities, together contributing an additional £8.5 million in matched funding, taking the investment up to £14.5 million.

I greatly look forward to this debate and to hearing the views of all who are speaking today. The independent panel’s report forms an important step on the road to achieving our vision of the post-18 education system. I hope that noble Lords will forgive the cliché, but it rings true in this case: it is not the end of the process but rather the beginning. We will continue to engage with stakeholders now that the independent panel phase is complete, as we work towards the completion of this review. I beg to move.

17:12

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I too welcome this timely debate and thank the huge number of organisations that sent us briefings. It shows the importance of the work we are talking about. We all welcomed the Government setting up the Augar review and there was excited anticipation and expectation. Here at last was an opportunity to put right the inequalities in our post-18 education system. I am afraid, however, that the editorial in the Guardian summed up my feelings about the published review. It said that the proposed rebalancing of the post-18 system meant,

“that FE colleges are no longer quite such poor relations”.

Further education, for so long the Cinderella of the education system, may look just a little bit better dressed, but is still very far from being invited to the ball. The media headlines were not about the rebalancing of vocational education but all about the impact on our universities. I do not think it was a helpful message from the spokespersons of the wealthiest universities that, should their income suffer, one of the likely cuts they would have make was to their outreach activities. Their budgets for increasing diversity and encouraging disadvantaged students would be the first to be cut. This was not a particularly helpful or thoughtful comment on the review.

Of course, the real beneficiaries of the proposed cut in fees will not be those who take out huge loans: they will be paying even more back over the longer repayment period. The beneficiaries will be those better-off students who do not need to take out a loan: they will benefit from a cut of £7,500 over a first degree course.

Both broadcast and print media paid scant attention to what was said about England’s 200 further education colleges, which are the backbone of our vocational training provision. Our further education colleges represent the essential engine to meet our growing skills gap.

Just 37% of men and 34% of women undertake post-secondary, non-tertiary education in the UK, which compares badly with the 49% of men and 44% of women across the industrialised nations of the OECD. I understand that £8 billion of government funding was received last year by universities to support 1.2 million students. That was more than three times the £2.3 billion allocated to 2.2 million full-time and part-time students aged over 18 in further education. While the proportion of students attending university has risen over the past decade, the number in all forms of further education has declined. In this country, we have a very elitist view of education in that schools and parents judge their pupils’ success by how many go to university. Last year, I visited an academy in a very poor part of London. As I went in through the door, the banner across the front portal read, “We Want All Our Children to Experience a University Education”. But actually, a vocational education or apprenticeship might be better for many young people. Further education is often seen as for other people’s children.

For many young people, particularly those whose parents did not go to university, their choices at 16 depend on the advice they receive at school. With schools incentivised to direct their students into the school sixth form and then to university, many students are not even told about the vocational options or apprenticeship routes open to them. Only this week, I was talking to a colleague who became the education officer in a local authority 40 years ago. He told me that he always made a point of looking behind the door of the head teacher’s office when he visited a secondary school to see whether there was an unopened box of FE college prospectuses. Is that still the case? I hope not.

At an event hosted by the APPG on Apprenticeships, every one of the seven apprentices invited to meet the group explained that they had been forced to do their own research into starting an apprenticeship. Not one of their schools had offered them any information or guidance. Following the addition of the “Baker clause” to the Technical and Further Education Bill, the Government reminded every school that, since 2 January 2018:

“Every school must ensure that there is an opportunity for a range of education and training providers to access all pupils in year 8 to year 13 for the purpose of informing them about approved technical education qualifications or apprenticeships. Every school must publish a policy statement setting out their arrangements for provider access and ensure that it is followed”.


I struggled to find the necessary policy statement on the school websites that I looked at, even though a model statement is set out in the guidance. Buried on one school’s site was a link from the heading “Not going to uni”, but the link was broken. Does the Minister know how many schools are meeting this statutory requirement?

Much of the report is good, and I will accentuate the positives in the 216-page review. It is encouraging to read that,

“there is a ‘powerful case’ for change in the FE sector … which in recent years has had its ability to innovate and plan for the long term ‘severely restricted’ by the funding regime”.

The report makes some very sound proposals. We support the proposal for a national network of colleges but have to consider the impact on students in rural areas. We very much welcome the £1 billion capital investment fund. We support the proposal that all adults should be able to study for their first level 2 and level 3 qualifications free of charge. We agree that there is no case to set a lower base rate for 18 year-olds in college compared to that for 16 and 17 year-olds. We agree that level 6 apprenticeships should be available only to those who have not undertaken a public-supported degree.

For me, as vice-president of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Teaching Profession, the most important recommendation is on the further education workforce. With average salaries being £7,000 less than in secondary schools, it is little wonder that FE colleges struggle to recruit staff. Can the Minister assure us that the 23% contribution to teachers’ pensions, which is hurtling towards colleges, will be funded by the Government?

In many of the technical areas that further education students need to study, salaries in the private sector are twice that of an FE lecturer. In terms of lifelong learning, we must ensure that our workforce is able to access the education that the changing patterns of employment will require. More than 2,000 years ago, Aristotle was able to say with confidence:

“Give me a child until he is seven and I will show you the man”.


Rousseau said much the same thing, with equal confidence, 300 years ago. How times have changed—and at a much faster rate than ever. For those who missed out earlier in their education, or those who need to retrain for a new career, lifelong learning is an absolute must. We must pay tribute to the Augar review for emphasising this.

All of us in our political careers regret things that we have been forced to do or see happen. For me—I hold up my hands—it was the coalition deciding to end maintenance grants. That was a real loss to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Now I am pleased that reinstating them has been suggested in the review. I very much hope that it will happen.

Finally, it is interesting to note that Mr Johnson and Mr Hunt have both announced spending plans as part of their leadership campaigns that even their own Chancellor thinks are in cloud-cuckoo-land. I have, to date, heard neither pledge to meet the cost of the Augar review. There is, of course, still plenty of time for each of them to agree to implement this review—at least one of the positive legacies that Mrs May craves.

17:22

[Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I intend to focus my remarks on the Augar review’s recommendations on further education, always a neglected area of public debate, not least in this House. Before doing so, I want to pick up on one aspect of the review concerning universities.

Unlike some commentators in the HE sector, I greatly welcome the recommendation to reduce tuition fees for undergraduates to a maximum of £7,500. The coalition Government’s decision to treble fees at one go was a mistake and unlikely to be sustainable, as we are now seeing. I can think of no other example where the price of a public service to the user, in this case graduates, has been increased by so much at once. There are several unfortunate outcomes, including the need for huge write-offs of unpaid loans, leaving a large problem for the public finances in the longer term, and the disastrous decline in part-time and mature undergraduates.

I welcome the recommendation to return to government grants to make up for the loss of fee income but regret that it is focused on STEM subjects. We must stop perpetuating the myth that science and engineering courses hugely outweigh others in their usefulness and value to the economy and society. For example, courses that prepare people for jobs in the creative industries, financial services, business or public sector management, as well as in education or social work, are as important. Can the Minister say categorically whether all undergraduate courses will have their funding made up by grant if fees are reduced to £7,500?

I now turn to further education. The Augar committee must be congratulated on taking up the cudgels on behalf of the colleges and the intermediate-level vocational and technical courses that they provide. It has been a feature of Conservative Governments to neglect FEs. When Labour took over in 1997, there were many failures in education that needed addressing after 18 years of Tory rule, but there were few greater than in further education. Close to a third of FE colleges were running deficits—in some cases, very large ones—and capital grants were far below what was required. The way they were managed needed attention, as did the training of their teaching staff. The Government addressed these issues, along with providing a 12% per annum increase in their funding.

When the Conservatives came back into power in 2010, once again FE went to the bottom of the pile. Whereas universities have been relatively unaffected by the austerity programme, FE has sustained huge cuts, which continued until very recently. I have often puzzled over Conservative Ministers’ long-standing reluctance to support the FE sector. Why do they not get it? Is it that they just do not know people involved in FE, either as staff or as students? Neither they nor their children normally go to these colleges. Nor is FE given much coverage in the media; it is always about universities or schools.

This debate has been initiated by the Government and I am grateful to them for that. I know that they are trying to fill in time here, as we have little to do with virtually no legislation of any significance while the ghastly saga of Brexit continues. However, I assume that they would not have initiated this debate unless they were prepared to give some indication of their intentions on Augar’s recommendations. Therefore, in commenting on some of them, I will ask whether they agree with them and, if so, what they will do. I would be grateful for a reply that does not just hide behind bland references to considering them in the spending review.

First, do the Government agree with the fundamental contention that it is now time to rebalance spending priorities towards the 50% of the population who do not go to university? Secondly, do they also agree that it is necessary, as Augar rightly states, to address the disparity between those who go to university and those who do not, in the interests of fairness and social justice but also to bring about considerable economic benefits? I am not sure that really came out in the Minister’s opening remarks. Thirdly, I know that the Government are aware of the need to improve skill levels if their industrial policy is to be implemented, but do they accept, as the Augar report argued, that far more needs to be done to expand the numbers with technical and vocational qualifications, in particular through much greater enrolment in courses at levels 4 and 5? The numbers have been falling, so what funding structures and incentives will the Government introduce to reverse this? Fourthly, will they ensure, as the Economic Affairs Select Committee recommended in its recent report, that any changes, especially at this level but at others too, will be flexible, allowing students choice over how long they take to build their skills through acquiring a qualification?

Many universities have invested in substantial capital programmes; in contrast, hardly any FE colleges have been able to do this. Augar estimates that around £1 billion is needed and sensibly advocates doing it on a strategic national basis in line with industrial strategy priorities. Without this funding, the FE sector will be unable to meet the standards required to deliver technical qualifications, nor will the quality of its provision match that of our nearest neighbours in Europe. Instead, its estate will remain in poor condition and high-cost courses will not be provided.

Funding also needs to be restored, as Augar advocated, for level 2 and 3 qualifications. Although more young people now attain qualifications at this level, many still fail to do so. This means that they must catch up later. If this is to happen, we have to restore adults’ entitlement to free tuition for level 2 and 3 qualifications, with flexible routes to attaining them. Do the Government accept this?

Do they also agree that FE colleges are the best way to deliver locally based, permanent and reliable institutions, which, while having some overlap with schools and universities, recognisably provide different education and training from either? Their branding, status and public profile need improvement. This requires initiative on their own part but, above all, requires the Government to stand up for them, resource them and help drive up their standards.

As Augar states:

“Funding rules are complex and inflexible. They impose short time horizons and do not allow FE colleges to respond to local labour market needs”.


The Government must rectify this, as well as increasing the core funding rate for adult education courses and for 18 year-olds, which has unaccountably been reduced.

I conclude by admitting that the FE sector has not been uniformly successful in providing high-quality courses with high completion rates. Greater investment in every teaching staff member’s training is needed. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, rightly said, their value also needs to be recognised through higher pay, since their pay has fallen considerably below that of secondary schoolteachers. This cannot be right. Employers need to be engaged constructively in the work of the colleges, helping to enrich their courses. This is incredibly important.

I end with a plea to the Government: please mend your ways and put the FE sector at the centre of the education system. Do not let it languish on the sidelines any longer. Do this as a matter of urgency.

17:31

[Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)]

My Lords, I will begin by declaring a few interests. I was chancellor of Newcastle University, a very good Russell Group university, for a number of years; I have been the elected chancellor of Oxford—the last election that I won—for 16 years; and, after I left the European Commission, I was a member of the working group that established how the European Research Council would work. Over the years, British universities have done exceptionally well out of peer-driven research under the ERC.

I should confess at the outset—it is good for the soul—that I have not always read every word of reports that I have commented or given speeches on. However, I did read every word of this report. It is extremely well written—I hope that does not sound patronising. There are one or two blemishes: I think the phrase “low-tariff universities” does not do much justice to the English language. However, by and large, it is well presented and extremely well written. The comprehensive referencing is probably a tribute to the number of academics on the panel. If you follow through with the referencing to the end of the report, you discover the IFS report indicating that graduate earnings have a great deal to do with the lifestyle of the graduate before university. This sort of drives a hole into one of the arguments the panel uses elsewhere for determining the value of courses. However, it is an extremely good report overall. It will provide very good resources for future discussions on higher and further education—I hope that is not too back-handed a compliment.

The rumour was that this would be the Government’s answer to the Corbyn effect at Glastonbury and that, because people thought that young voters had gone to Labour because of the promise to get rid of tuition fees, the right answer was to find a Tory version. Frankly, I think that that is a lot of baloney. Most students are too smart to think that you can get rid of all tuition fees without having some effect on public spending elsewhere. After all, they are not running for the leadership of the Conservative Party. They are perhaps a little smarter on the existence or non-existence of money-bearing trees. Also, reducing the tuition fee by £1,750—in what is, after all, a pretty regressive package of measures—will not have very much effect on young people’s voting habits. However, the decision to reinstate maintenance grants is very welcome. I hope the Office for Students will also think that, because it has been rather critical of our bursaries at Oxford, which are more generous than maintenance grants. I hope it will think again on that.

As the noble Baroness has just said, the most welcome part of the report is what is said about FE. The report quotes my noble friend Lord Baker as referring to FE as a Cinderella at the end of the 1980s. In 1985-86, I was the Minister responsible for FE and schools. It was a Cinderella then. As the noble Baroness has just remarked, FE—Cinderella—has been very badly treated since then by successive Conservative Governments. In 1990, FE spending per pupil was 50% higher than in secondary schools. By 2015, that had fallen so that FE spending per pupil was 10% below that in schools. We know that FE spending has fallen in real terms since 2010 and the cost has been closed courses, closed and badly maintained colleges, and teaching salaries in FE being much below those for similar jobs in schools. It is intolerable. It is shameful for Governments who have consistently and properly talked about the importance of doing something about low productivity in the British economy. I hope that this part of the report will be implemented by a Conservative Government —if there is one—or any Government in the future. It is exceptionally important.

I want to make three general points about what the report has to say about HE. First, there is a heroic assumption that the money lost to universities in tuition fees will be provided by the Government in some other way. I imagine that universities, their governing councils and vice-chancellors would take that assurance with a warehouse of salt, given past experience about university funding. We are told that any loss of income will be made up by changing the teaching grants so that we will get more in for STEM subjects and less for humanities and social sciences. Unless that happens—and unless there was some adjustment—we would lose about 17% of our tuition fee income at Oxford, for example.

The formula used for the shift from the humanities and social sciences to STEM is pretty absurd. It gets us back to the low-tariff and low-return universities. At some universities, humanities and social sciences may not be taught as well as they might be, but what happens when that is all the university does, such as at SOAS? It has been a very great university, though it is in some financial difficulty at the moment. At Oxford, our social sciences come first in the world in the QS rankings and many of our humanities subjects come extremely high. I do not think it makes very much sense to penalise those as proposed in the Augar report, not least given that we get huge and well-paid employment opportunities for graduates in those areas.

I also have an intellectual horror of talking about the humanities and social sciences in entirely utilitarian terms. I remember being criticised once when I was talking about the importance of people studying translating Voltaire. I was asked what that did for the country’s gross domestic product. It is perfectly true that the answer is, “I haven’t got the faintest idea”, but that is not actually the point. We know that a lot of things are done and taught at universities which would make us poorer as a society if they were not, even if you cannot demonstrate that they make us richer because we do them. I am very reluctant to accept the argument about shifting all the grant from the humanities and social sciences into STEM subjects, although they are extremely important.

I will make two other brief points. First, we tiptoe gently around the question of the different roles of different universities. We have been doing it ever since we doubled the number of universities by calling all the polytechnics universities. This was at a time when, frankly, some of the polytechnics were better than the universities, so it was not a question of suddenly giving the polytechnics a great lift up in the world. In Oxford, there are two fine universities. They do different jobs. We should not be too nervous about saying that universities have different functions and objectives. The report says—and I totally agree—that almost all other countries have very clear categories of university. Why are we in this country not prepared to accept that and face up to it? This is a debate that should be led by the higher education sector itself; it should not be imposed on higher education and higher education institutions by Ministers or quasi-ministerial bodies. It is a debate in which universities themselves should get engaged. Certainly, I do not believe that slightly wimpish phrases about getting the OfS to “bear down” on the cost of some courses is the right way to address a serious issue. If only we had a system like the Californian one we would not have to get involved in all this.

My last point is, I guess, the most important; it might sound disobliging to the authors of this admirable report. Universities are facing tremendous problems with the approach of Brexit whether with or without a deal. There are implications for students, for our research, for the professors and lecturers at our universities, and for our income streams. These are turbulent times; I hope that we will not add to that turbulence the gale force of a complete overhaul of university financing. We should help universities over the next period; the Government have so far been unprepared to say how they see the way forward.

17:41

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, I first declare an interest as a member of the panel that produced this review. I thank the Minister and other noble Lords for their kind words. Obviously, I hope that the Government will implement our recommendations but I start by commending them for recognising that post-secondary education is, increasingly, for and about everyone, not just a small part of the population.

This is the first English Government-commissioned report, since Robbins in 1963, to look at post-18 education overall. Media coverage, predictably, has focused on universities; I have to say that the Minister’s opening remarks rather did so too. What matters for this country now and in the future, in my opinion and that of my fellow panel members, is the overall system. We have tried to produce a system of interlocking recommendations, which should—please—be treated as such, as far as possible.

In my limited time, I shall highlight three overarching conclusions which drove our very long list of specific recommendations. Before doing so, I emphasise that our terms of reference excluded any significant increase in total spending. We had to consider post-18 education as a single system, without some vast funding increase to make things smoother for everybody. We took that very seriously because we felt it was a realistic position: it was sensible to assume that there would not be much extra spending and to look at priorities and choices in that context.

Turning to our first and most important conclusion, I have to agree that the further education sector badly needs attention. Further and adult provision has been grievously neglected. Some of our headline numbers have, fortunately, been widely quoted: more than £8 billion was committed in 2017-18 to 1.2 million English undergraduates; in the same period, 2.2 million adult further education students received a little over a quarter of that amount—£2.3 billion—from public funding. Our undergraduate numbers have soared; we have one of the highest university participation rates in the OECD. Yet the total number of people in post-18 education has actually declined.

We think this is shameful and short-sighted, and the remedy is not some emergency bailout but to create —to recreate—a high-quality network of non-university provision. We inherited in this country a nationwide set of institutions closely linked to their communities. Every town of any size has a further education college, once commonly known as “the tech”. If we truly want to serve the whole community in the future, those colleges must again take centre stage.

While 18 year-olds can move away from home for three years, adults cannot; while 19 year-olds can study full-time, no adult with a family and a mortgage can do so. Small businesses create the majority of new private sector jobs in this country. They are at the heart of any successful apprenticeship system and an enormous part of our economy. They can work with and relate to a college, but there is very little opportunity for them to engage with a large university. While our universities are indeed world-class—I forgot to declare my other interest as a full-time employee of a fine university—we have created a walled dead end for anyone not university-bound. That is not merely half of our young people; in parts of the country it is well over half. In England today, the overwhelming majority of those not academically successful at 18 never progress to higher qualifications. That should be a source of deep national shame.

Further and adult provision has been underfunded and subject to short-term government contracts and endless micromanagement. But high-quality provision needs to be run in a stable, well financed way. A good comparison is with medical education, which is equally vocational. Most of what colleges do post-18 is workplace-oriented, vocational and technical. We would never run medical schools the way we have run further education. All this provision needs to be stable, expert, well resourced and based in institutions. That is why we made this issue such a major part of our review.

My second point concerns our very first recommendation. It has received rather little attention but we put it first because we thought it so important. I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and with the Guardian: our review promises quite significant change, and this first recommendation is fundamental. The recommendation is to introduce a single lifelong learning allowance for adults, set at the same level as the loan entitlement that people currently have for a degree but giving individuals far more control over when and how they use it.

Our system at the moment tells young people, “Yes, you have an entitlement. You can have one full-time degree —once. Take it or leave it”. They very rationally think they should take it, and higher education, very rationally, sets out to make an offer that is, overwhelmingly and increasingly, for a full-time full degree. The level 4 and 5 technical qualifications have simply been disappearing, in spite of well-documented skill shortages and employer demand.

Students have a lot of choice of subject but very little choice over mode of study. A lifetime learning allowance of the sort we are advocating would enable and motivate people to split their education. They could take a technical qualification aged 18 or 28, then 10 years later take another, or perhaps at that point go on to a degree. This would give them a strong incentive to hold some money back and a strong incentive to part-fund when they can, because they could keep the money for when they need it. It would give a strong incentive to do some of their higher education in a college and then move to a university later. We believe it would also give a very strong incentive to institutions to develop a more varied set of offers. We put this recommendation first because we think it really matters.

My third and final point comes back to university funding, which will of course be a source of considerable debate. I should like to make two points on this. I do not want to get too involved in progressive versus regressive, except to say that we looked at this as a system—as a set of interconnected proposals. It is the proposals as a whole that we should consider when we talk about whether this is progressive. We believe that something that shifts resources to the 50% of the population who have been grievously served of late, is intrinsically a progressive set of recommendations.

My second point is that we were taken aback by how far funding and costs seem to have become divorced, and how universities have a complex set of cross-subsidies. You always cross-subsidise a bit, but it has become extraordinarily opaque—Heath Robinson would be proud of it. For example, and centrally, since this current system was introduced, the value of teaching grants, with which the Government top up student fees for high-cost subjects, has been comprehensively and progressively eroded. Unlike those in other countries, including Scotland, our universities now receive very little more for a science degree than they do for one in business studies. The funding for physics since 2011 has grown by a mere 6%, but for leisure studies it has grown by 40%. We find it hard to believe that the cost of teaching English has increased so much faster than the cost of teaching chemistry.

More importantly, a system so transparent and divorced from cost is not one that is stable or rational, or that can endure. Therefore, we made some serious suggestions for changing the nature of the funding regime, to make it clearer and recognise costs, because any regime for funding higher or further education must take proper account of both differential costs and the financial incentives that these create for institutions. At present, ours does not, and I hope noble Lords will consider the review and its recommendations with this, and our other general conclusions, in mind. I thank noble Lords.

17:51

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness did a good job of explaining clearly the recommendations of the report of which she was a party. I agree with her that Heath Robinson would be proud of the current university finance system. Indeed, it is now so complicated that it reminds me of Lord Palmerston’s famous remark, on the Schleswig-Holstein question, that there were only three people who understood it: one was dead, one had gone mad, and he was the third and had forgotten it. It is that complicated now, and part of the reason is that one reform has been layered on another reform. In the last 20 years, there have been three major reforms of the university finance system. Each Government have engaged in a substantial reform—indeed, as I look around the Chamber, I see the authors of many of them here, with the wounds to show for their works.

I had the misfortune to be closely associated with two of those reforms: the 1997 reform and the 2003 reform. The 2003 reform was the first of the seriously controversial ones, because it required an appreciable fee level of £3,000 being paid by students. I shall never forget that, when we had the general election shortly after in 2005, a friend of mine was standing in a university seat, and the fees were the big, controversial issue. I thought that I would defuse the issue at the beginning of my speech by saying that I knew that on my tombstone will be engraved the words “Tuition Fees”, and somebody shouted out from the back, “Not soon enough”. It got much worse than that, because that was £3,000 and we at least managed to create a consensus. Indeed, I was rather proud of the consensus we established between the two major political parties on tuition fees at the level of £3,000, because in my view big reforms of this kind only stick if you can create a consensus. It was not a complete consensus, because the Liberal Democrats were strongly in favour of abolishing all fees and fought the 2010 election on that.

The big mistake in policy, in my view, was the decision in 2010 to treble fees. That was a mistake in terms of making the policy acceptable, because it broke the consensus. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back in terms of public acceptability to go from £3,000 to £9,000. It was also a mistake in policy, because the universities did not actually require, in terms of any objective assessment of need, that degree of cash infusion. Indeed, they were not capable of absorbing it. All of the Government’s own modelling on the 2010 reform—the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is not in his place, but he and I have debated this a lot over the years—was done on a fee level of £7,500, because £9,000 was supposed to be the upper limit, and it was expected that most courses would be at £6,000 and that the fees would be varied. What happened, of course, was that every university went straight up to £9,000. Universities could barely absorb the cash, which is the reason why the vice-chancellors are being paid £300,000 to £400,000, and in the case of the University of Bath—which I am afraid I got rather involved in because it was such a scandal—a salary of £500,000. It is not just the people at the top; there was a huge increase in the size of senior management teams and a big sense of resentment inside the universities themselves.

Although the noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that we need to tackle the issue of FE, it is important to understand that the inequity in the system has got substantially worse over the last 10 years. It is not as if we are moving towards an end point where there is going to be a fairer and better system. As the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said, the words of the report are excellent, but I am afraid that the graphs and figures—I always go to those first, as they tell you what is really going on—are startling. I invite noble Lords to compare Figure 3.1 with Figure 4.3. Figure 3.1, which gives university resources per student per publicly funded degree, shows that in real or constant terms the resources per publicly funded degree in the last 15 years have gone up from £18,000 to £28,000. There is no area of public spending which has been remotely as well protected as universities. However, Figure 4.3, which gives FE college sector total income in constant prices, shows a decrease in real terms, from spending of nearly £8 billion a year 10 years ago to under £6 billion a year now. So what we have done in the last 10 years—we as a Parliament and the coalition Government and the Conservative Government since 2010—while we have all been paying lip service to equality of opportunity and investing in the majority who do not go to university and are dependent on the FE system, is to massively increase resources per head in universities, irrespective of the type of university. There has been no differentiation of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, was talking about.

It is striking that, for a lot of courses in universities now, the fee level is higher than the actual cost of delivering the course. With fees at £9,500 per student per year, most social science and arts courses do not remotely cost that much to deliver. That is the reason why secondary schools, which teach about three times as much as universities in terms of per hour teaching in the arts, have a fee level—a grant per year—which is half the level of universities now, and that is being cut year by year, although they are the supply chain for the universities. At the same time as that has happened, we have had a huge cut in resources for FE.

On apprenticeships—we do not have my noble friend Lord Layard speaking, who has rightly championed apprenticeships over the years—

[Noble Lords]

We do!

[Lord Adonis]

Oh, we do. Well, I may slightly be pre-empting my noble friend’s speech. He has been lobbying—he lobbied me when I was in government—for substantial reform to bring us much more in line with the German system, where young people who do not go on to university have a standard apprenticeship offer, which is what we desperately need as a society.

We have managed the remarkable feat of introducing an apprenticeship levy, which is requiring employers to pay towards apprenticeships, while apprenticeship numbers have gone down. So we have managed the triple whammy of massively increasing resources per head for the most privileged part of the post-18 system, slashing resources for the part of the system that deals with those who have the lowest skill levels at 18, and creating a funding system for apprenticeships which has got more money going in but does not appear to be producing any decent output. If we were not dealing with the crisis of Brexit—and I have to raise that in every speech I make, because it is the opportunity cost and the reason that the Government cannot do anything about any of this—these would be urgent matters requiring attention.

What should we do? I do not think that the current system is sustainable. I know that I am surrounded by people who are deeply engaged in the work of universities, who would love to think that we can maintain fee levels of £9,500 a year, with a 6% real interest rate and the current system. For what it is worth, speaking as a politician, I simply do not think that it is going to be sustainable. There is no other country in the world that has an average public fee level as high as ours that is required to be paid by students. Most European countries that started to go down this road, because of massive public pressure—of the kind we had at the last election, with it becoming a contentious issue between the parties—have abolished them. Most significantly, looking at leading-edge public policy, the Federal Republic of Germany, which introduced modest fees, has abolished them. In the United States, in US public universities—not private universities, which of course is what we spend most of our time looking at—where most students go, fee levels have been coming down and are being abolished in some states, notably now in New York.

I do not think the current system is sustainable, and there will be pressure over time to reduce the fee level. Either universities will have to take the burden of that entirely, which in my view they could afford to do if it was done in a managed way, or there will have to be some shift towards taxation. It is very clear to me that that should be done in the form of adjustments to the higher rate of tax, because only about 15% of taxpayers pay the higher rate. The idea that it would be inequitable to move towards a tax-based system is completely wrong. It depends on which taxes you increase and what system you put in place. If there was a modest increase in the higher rate traded off against a reduction in tuition fees and the money was segmented in some form, it could be done. I say all that not because it will be popular in the House but because it is probably inevitable that that will happen in due course.

The really important recommendation in the report, which is hugely significant for where it might lead in long-term policy, was mentioned at the end of the noble Baroness’s remarks, and that is the proposal for a lifelong loan allowance. The principle of the lifelong loan allowance is, to my mind, incontrovertible, and that is that the state should make an investment in all young people at the age of 18 that is in principle the same: whether you go on to an apprenticeship, further education or higher education, the commitment the state makes to you should be the same. Of course, they will be going to different institutions and many will go into apprenticeships and so on, but it is totally unjustifiable that, at the moment, the state makes a contribution about three times as great investing in students going on to universities, who already, by and large, have most spent on them before the age of 18, with many of them going to expensive private schools. It is totally unjustifiable that they should also then be the beneficiary of so much additional state investment beyond the age of 18.

If the principle of the lifelong loan allowance—that all students get the same investment—is accepted, over time that must lead to new investment going into further education and apprenticeships. Then the big challenge—and I look forward to my noble friend Lord Layard’s speech—is how we create a system that ensures we have an apprenticeship regime in this country that resembles that of the Federal Republic of Germany. I have always taken the view in public policy that R&D stands for “Rob and Duplicate”: where somebody else does something really well, you should copy it like mad. It is high time that we accepted that many of our continental friends have done a brilliant job of creating high-quality apprenticeship systems, and the sooner we copy them, the better.

18:02

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, let me say at the outset that I support much of what has been said already about further education colleges: they need significantly more support. I do so because many of my remarks are addressed at the university sector, particularly our research-intensive universities, and the effect that might possibly be had by the reduction of fees. The Science and Technology Committee, which I chair, is currently taking evidence on research funding of universities. The comments I will make arose during an evidence session in that context.

The Independent Panel Report to the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding in England has recommended reducing tuition fees. It is interesting that we call them “tuition fees”, which suggests the money is used for nothing but tuition. That, of course, is not the case, as those who run universities know well. Maybe, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, has suggested, we should call them “university fees”. The panel recommended reducing fees to £7,500 per year, with a broad recommendation for the Government to make up this money through direct teaching grants. However, there is no obligation for the Government to adopt all its recommendations. I hope that they will take that recommendation on board, but there is also no indication as to how these teaching grants will be distributed. I asked the noble Viscount the Minister a question the other day as to who would decide how this grant is distributed. There has been some suggestion in the evidence that we heard that there might be some kind of mechanism on a quality basis, which might be variable in the distribution of this grant.

As Professor Julia Buckingham, president-elect of Universities UK, said to the House of Lords Select Committee, it is vital that the Government ensure that any lost fee income is made up through grants, with a long-term Treasury commitment to fund universities at a sustainable level. Given the current political uncertainty, it is unclear how the next Prime Minister will view the report and whether the recommendations will be cherry picked. Any future Prime Minister and Government must commit to funding universities sustainably. Analysis by Universities UK finds that a reduction to £7,500 tuition fees would result in a £1.6 billion funding gap, which would need to be filled through direct grants. If this funding was not replaced, for many institutions this would reduce research income by between 10% and 60%, particularly for the research-intensive universities. For some it would result in the loss of their entire research budget.

The most up-to-date TRAC data published in May 2019 found that there is a £3.7 billion deficit for research in England and Northern Ireland, with recovery of full economic cost for research standing at 69%, because universities do not get full recovery of cost for certain grants as is the case for charities. This is subsidised substantially by non-publicly funded teaching, at 139.3% of full economic cost, and by other income-generating activities such as commercial activities, investments, donations and endowments, with publicly funded teaching broadly breaking even at 98.3% of full economic cost. So research universities do not use tuition fees as they are called, or student fees, for subsidising research; they have to find that money from other sources.

Given the sensitive balance of cross-subsidisation within higher education institutions between domestic teaching, non-domestic teaching and research, it is vital that the post-18 review does not lead to a cut in university funding, with any potential reduction in student fees being replaced through direct grants. Not only is this important to maintaining the quality of the UK’s world-class university sector and supporting work to widen participation for disadvantaged students, but failing to do so may lead to significant funding being diverted within institutions away from research activities. I do not say, as has been suggested, that universities would have to cut their outreach programmes for disadvantaged pupils. I do not think that we should harm universities that have saved money. For example, a fall in funding for domestic teaching might lead to additional international student income and income from other activities being used to plug the hole, and therefore being diverted away from supporting research activities. Anything that damages the reputation of the UK’s higher education sector would also pose a threat to international student recruitment, such as reports of institutional difficulties or even threats of closure, thereby compounding the task for UK Research and Innovation.

Universities use their reserves to fund construction and maintenance of buildings and the purchasing of new equipment. If these resources are increasingly stretched as a result of a cut to funding, universities will be less able to invest in the infrastructure that enables them to gain a competitive edge. For instance, these days to recruit a high-calibre senior academic to start a new research channel costs between £2 million and £3 million to universities. “Non-essential” but highly valuable functions of universities that do not draw in funding are the most likely to be cut. These include smaller research projects, such as those with a local or community focus, and work with smaller industry partners for whom high amounts of matched funding are not possible.

Finally, although the Department for Education may want a reduction in the resources going into universities, at the same time BEIS wants to increase R&D from 2.4% to 3% of GDP, which would require 120,000 to 260,000 more graduates. They need not all be graduates, and the higher education colleges will have a significant role to play, but people will need to be taught STEM subjects to carry out the research and innovation—so a reduction in fees for the universities does have other implications. My plea to the Minister is that, in implementing the Augar review, the Government fund the universities as it recommended, so that they can continue as world-class research establishments.

18:10

[The Lord Bishop of Winchester]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this debate. Similarly, I thank Philip Augar and the independent panel members for the thorough review that they have undertaken. I welcome the publication of this report and the issues it raises. I declare my interests as the lead bishop for further and higher education, and as a governor of the University of Winchester.

I shall comment on three areas. My first point is about ensuring a genuinely rich ecology of higher education providers, and especially the contribution made by smaller and specialist institutions. A local example is the University of Winchester, a member of the Cathedrals Group association of universities, some of which are among the country’s smaller higher education institutions in terms of student numbers. One of the headline recommendations of the review is to lower tuition fees, which will reduce the funding institutions receive unless it is provided from other sources, such as grants for teaching. To enhance a diverse range of universities and secure the quality of provision, it is imperative to have a funding system that enables these institutions to flourish, and not simply larger universities which are generally more able to withstand funding turbulence.

It is true that the effect of the proposed changes will vary between institutions. However, I draw the Minister’s attention to some initial estimates on this matter. A headline tuition fee of £7,500 would reduce the income of some Cathedrals Group members by some 10% to 20%. One of the likely consequences of such a reduction would be fewer opportunities for students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds to access good local higher education provision—a particular strength in members of the Cathedrals Group, amounting to almost one in four students at one such institution.

It is vital to recall that universities are crucial centres for cultural provision, community and civic engagement, and support for local economies. I therefore support the report’s recommendation that teaching grants should replace any funding deficit, so that local communities do not lose out from a decline in university civic engagement, and, equally importantly, students do not suffer the loss of essential services, including provision for mental health and well-being—although I do share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, about the security of such a funding stream in the future.

My second point is how pleased I was to see the emphasis placed on the value of further education—not just in an abstract way but by addressing funding for the 50% of young people who never attend university. It is crucial to recognise the central value of further education as an essential public good in itself. Indeed, it is part of the basic educational infrastructure that opens opportunities for those from all backgrounds to access learning and training, enabling them to contribute to the cultural and industrial health of our society. Many noble Peers have already pressed the case here.

Furthermore, I am pleased that Augar is forward-looking to the changing landscape of the labour market. Our further and higher education sector must not only support the increasing number of 18 year-olds wishing to study at university, but be adaptable enough to meet the needs of a society demanding reskilled adult workers. It is crucial that further education colleges, particularly in towns that lack a university, receive a long-term increase in funding. Further education provides the training required to meet the future skills that will be demanded of a society in a fast-changing technological context, offering opportunities for adult learners to return to study and to reskill, especially for the emerging fourth industrial revolution driven by artificial intelligence. I would welcome in particular a commitment from the Minister that Her Majesty’s Government will reverse the underfunding of further education by implementing the recommendations of the report, although I recognise that he may feel unable to commit to this at present.

Thirdly, I support the review’s judgement that the value of a degree should include its social value, and in doing so we must move beyond a narrowly one-dimensional measure based entirely on graduate earning potential. Let me take a concrete example from one of the professions with a public service focus: nursing. Clearly, the restoration of a block grant for teaching would help offset any reduction in fee income and avoid adversely affecting the financial viability of this type of provision. Similarly, the reintroduction of maintenance awards may well go some way towards encouraging increased recruitment, and perhaps compensate for the sharp fall in nursing degree undergraduate applications that has resulted from the abolition of bursaries in April 2017.

However, such steps are insufficiently radical. They do not, for example, address anxieties about student debt that are particularly acute in professions such as nursing, where some 50% of nursing and midwifery trainees are mature students with other family, caring and financial commitments. Nor will they address the equally crucial crisis in staff retention, already visible in nursing, and in social work and teaching.

As a matter of public policy, we need to create more effective ways to incentivise people to join public-service focused professions and to avoid unintentional disincentives for the higher education institutions that educate and train them—for example, by placing too much weight on graduate earnings as a measure of institutional effectiveness. May I suggest to the Minister that a more radical approach would be through a public service covenant. Using the example of nursing—teaching and social work are other possible professions—undergraduates would commit to several years post-registration service to the NHS in return for their loan balance being written off.

I would welcome a response from the Minister as to whether the Government plan to review their higher education policy to address the recruitment and retention crisis in a number of critical public service professions, and whether he would be willing to meet with me to discuss how such a public service covenant might be introduced.

18:18

[Lord Layard (Lab)]

My Lords, many years ago I worked on the Robbins report, and I believe that the Augar review could well turn out to be at least as important. Robbins unleashed the expansion of HE and I hope that the Augar report will unleash the expansion of FE. That is what I want to talk about.

The question is how to unleash such an expansion. I will focus my remarks on levels 2 and 3, which is where we are signally failing. We are producing lots of graduates, and the entitlement we have talked about might produce some more, but we are not producing enough well-trained non-graduates. This is where we differ from our competitors, and it is the source of our low productivity and our great income inequality.

How are we to unleash an energy of expansion at levels 2 and 3? Augar proposes an entitlement to free level 2 and level 3 education. When I heard Mr Augar present his report, that was his number one proposal. I was really excited by it, but I asked him how he would deliver it on the ground. I then read the Augar review and I could not find any explanation of how the places would be generated that would enable young people to feel that they had an entitlement, just as young people going up the academic route feel that there is an entitlement there: if they pass at one level, they know that they can automatically go to the next level. It is completely clear to them what the system is like and what the entitlement means. However, if you are going through FE, you do not know what will be available; it is not quite clear, and what you want might not be available. So how will we get a system like that?

We have to learn to apply the same principles to the non-academic route as we apply to the academic route. The fundamental solution to the problem in FE is to organise it as we organise sixth-form colleges and universities: to make it the same system with the same clarity of progression. How does that progression work in the case of sixth-forms and universities? It works because there is per capita funding. If a provider wants to put on a course, either at sixth-form level or in a university, they simply put it on and the money arrives with the student—it is per capita funding. We will never unleash the energy and dynamism that we see in HE in FE unless we have the same mechanism. It has to be per capita funding: automatically, the money has to follow the student. At the moment it follows the student only up to the age of 19. If you go down the non-university route, it then stops, so that age limit has to be extended to provide uncapped funding right through for all ages. That is my main point: you will not have any of this happening unless you uncap the funding of FE and apprenticeships—it really is quite simple.

There are problems, of course, with demand-led funding. We have seen some disasters in the past with individual learning accounts. There has to be a well-established system through which this uncapped funding is going. The funders have to know the institutions, have a proper list of approved institutions that they know and understand and have criteria for what courses can attract what amount of funding. That takes time to establish.

The main task over the next five years in FE and in apprenticeships is to develop this concept of a clear register of institutions and courses for which funding then becomes automatic: if a student goes there, they bring the money with them. That is a total contrast to the present system—perpetuated in Augar—in which we have ex ante contracting. The Education and Skills Funding Agency says to a provider, in response to a request, “Yes, you can have so many places, with so much money”. It is severely rationed and probably will go on being rationed. There is some extra money in Augar, but nothing like enough to produce an explosion or revitalisation of that sector.

I will say a bit about when that could happen. A five-year programme could lead to an uncapped system—within 3 years for people up to the age of 24, and for all ages at the end of a five-year period. Then you would have the elements of a system outside universities that worked in the same way as the system inside universities. Anything else would just not live up to the language of establishing equality between one sector and another.

I will say a bit about apprenticeships. We have a debate on apprenticeships the day after tomorrow, so I will not deal with the subject quite as fully as I will then, but obviously we want most of the people who are not going to university to go into an apprenticeship—it should be the main alternative to university. It has to have demand-led funding. In particular, that applies to the non-levy paying employers, because the system is somewhat different when you are paying the levy. What we have at the moment is an extraordinary system of funding for non-levy paying employers where the total amount is an unpredictable residual—it has been cut severely over the last year two years—and that really is an outrage.

Even if we have uncapped funding for apprenticeships, we cannot be sure that the number of places will match the demand. There is huge excess demand at the moment, but you have to persuade not only the training providers to come in on the apprenticeship system but also the employers. This is a further task and somebody has to be put in charge of it. We have a National Apprenticeship Service, but its mission is not to make sure that every young person who wants an apprenticeship can find one. That has to become its mission. We have to have a body whose duty is to persuade employers to provide enough apprenticeships—in particular for people who are under 25 who are looking to get off to a good start in life. We have to make apprenticeships the natural route that a person can expect to be able to progress along in the early part of their life if they are not going to university.

We had in the 2009 Act a guarantee of an apprenticeship, which was repealed when the coalition Government came in. Let us not have a legal guarantee, but we should have a policy guarantee that every young person outside university who is qualified at one level can find a place at the next level up. That has to be the objective, and it requires the uncapping of expenditure. Quite honestly, we have been playing the Robbins principle for nearly 50 years for the privileged group, where places are available for everybody who is qualified for one. We have just not begun to think about how to do that for the other 50%. Uncapping is the main channel.

I have one other point: this sector will not flourish without a champion. The Economic Affairs Committee of this House recommended that there should be a funding agency, as there once was at the time of the last Labour Government, to champion this sector. It cannot be left to a lone Minister and civil servants; there has to be a structure championing it. There are two acid tests of whether one is really serious about this. First, are we willing to work towards an uncapped system for outside the universities, as there is for inside them? Secondly, are we willing to establish a champion who will push for that sector? I consider those questions to be the acid test and I hope the Minister can comment on both of them.

18:28

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I was disappointed that so much of the reaction to this excellent Augar report focused on the issues relating to universities and their funding, but the debate so far has gone a long way to restoring the balance. I too will focus on issues including skills in general, further education and apprenticeships. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Layard, in that context.

The report clearly shows how shockingly further education has been neglected in recent years. It has undergone average budget cuts of 30%, yet it has responsibility for educating about half of all young people—those who do not go to university—and is crucial to the Government’s laudable goals of achieving parity of esteem for technical and professional education with higher education, and to delivering T-levels. The total number of people involved in post-18 education has actually declined, and that decline is mostly in FE. The Augar review is right to recommend increased funding for the sector, including £1 billion of capital investment, together with a restructuring and grouping of colleges to increase the quality of provision and access. Its recommendations for a three-year adult education budget, for increased capacity for technical provision in specific FE colleges, and, above all, for greater investment in the FE workforce are also welcome. Why can there not be a programme such as Teach First or Now Teach to encourage new teachers into FE?

I am also delighted that the report asks for the careers strategy launched in 2017 to be rolled out nationally. This strategy is fundamental to addressing our skills needs and is already making an impact, particularly in areas which have received funding for careers hubs. I find it very encouraging that the latest evidence from the Careers & Enterprise Company indicates that careers support is now strongest in areas of disadvantage. I hope the Government will take to heart the recommendations that hubs should be rolled out nationally and that more young people should have access to careers activities, including encounters with employers—and, of course, that schools should be held to account for their statutory responsibility under the Baker clause to give employers access to their students.

The report includes a chapter on apprenticeships, starting with a very helpful contextual overview outlining the recent history and current status of apprenticeship policy. I echo the congratulations of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, on the quality of the report itself. This chapter includes the suggestion that apprenticeships should reflect the priorities of the industrial strategy, which I will come back to. I am not convinced that Ofsted is the right body to have the lead responsibility for inspecting the quality of apprenticeships at all levels. Given the range of sectors covered by apprenticeship standards, I am not sure whether Ofsted, as an education regulator, would have the right experience or skills to reflect the needs of the employers for whom and by whom the standards are designed.

However, I agree that the standard-setting process should be more transparent, and I strongly support the suggestion of undertaking work to address the barriers faced by SMEs in offering apprenticeships. Over half of current apprenticeships are in SMEs and that proportion will need to be maintained in future, but relatively few SMEs have the knowledge, capacity or willingness to offer them. My own experience, mainly with SMEs employing apprentices in the construction sector, has shown that specific mechanisms are needed to support them in providing apprenticeships, such as the apprenticeship training agencies—ATAs—of which the Minister has occasionally made mention. Can he tell us what actual support the Government might consider for ATAs or for other mechanisms to enable more SMEs to offer apprenticeships?

There are some gaps in the report’s recommendations. The utilities sector is a vital part of UK infrastructure and a particularly effective employer of apprentices. Its 1,000th apprentice completed the endpoint assessment process under the new standards just last month; it was only about six months ago that I hosted an event here to celebrate the 500th apprentice who achieved that goal. The report notes the sector also faces severe skills shortages, with 33% of skills shortage vacancies, but is not clear how this strong unmet demand for craft-level skills might be addressed.

There is little mention of the potential impact of new technology in delivering post-18 education. What happened to all those MOOCs—the massive open online courses—that we used to hear so much about? I would have expected more coverage of new, digitally based ways of delivering post-18 education, whether in or outside colleges. The report mentions but does not actually recommend the sensible idea of creating a single central portal or clearing-house for information about, and applications to, technical education courses along the lines of what UCAS does for higher education.

How will the review’s recommendations promote overall workforce development and labour market resilience? Its terms of reference extend only to England but, although education and skills are devolved, most other aspects of the labour market are UK-wide: the movement of people, industrial strategy, productivity, work and pensions arrangements, and so on. How can we have a meaningful UK-wide skills and workforce strategy without ensuring some degree of consistency, optimisation and shared goals between the four UK nations, not to mention the wider regional situation? There is already an anomaly with apprenticeships: employers in the devolved nations pay the apprenticeship levy to the UK Government but do not have the opportunity available to employers in England of drawing on their levy payments to fund their own apprenticeships.

A strength of the review is that it seeks to tackle post-18 education in the round, within the limits of its terms of reference. Skills strategy as a whole might benefit from a similar approach to create a comprehensive blueprint for tackling UK skills needs and provide a framework for deciding how the Government’s various initiatives fit together, what each should deliver and how their success should be measured. The review says that 70% of apprentices are aged 19 or over: is that good or bad? Should the allocation of apprenticeships by sector or geography be mainly market-driven, as now, or more responsive to the industrial strategy’s priorities? How can a UK-wide labour market be reconciled with devolved education and skills policies? Without an overarching strategy, such questions cannot be easily answered. The result is a plethora of separate initiatives, often worthy in themselves but not necessarily consistent or mutually reinforcing.

I do not expect the Minister to be able to commit to the development of such an approach in today’s debate. But I urge him and his colleagues, as they look at the spending review and beyond, to explore the possibility of some sort of grand plan for skills to which all interested parties could sign up: politicians, national and regional; educators at all levels; employers; and, above all, young people, especially the 50% for whom university does not fit the bill and who we will look to for the technical skills that we need. Such a plan would of course incorporate many of the welcome recommendations in the Augar review, and in a way that inspired confidence that they would make a measurable difference in raising productivity and delivering the industrial strategy. I believe there is a real opportunity here, and look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government might seek to grasp it, using the Augar report as a template.

18:37

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration of interest in the register and reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said about the nature, accessibility and depth of the report. After listening to him this afternoon and with our joint venture on Radio 4’s “Any Questions” last week, I can genuinely call him my noble friend.

It seems to me that the report was extremely thorough and that the understanding of Philip Augar, and those working with him, of the system’s complexities is displayed very well. My only criticism of the members of the review, if the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, will forgive me, is their naiveté. It is naiveté that the Treasury was, in any foreseeable future, likely to provide the funding necessary; they were also naive about the ingenious creative accounting, which led to the belief that it would be possible, on an annualised basis, to present the changes at £700 million. I am familiar with creative accounting from my days as leader of Sheffield City Council, when Margaret Thatcher’s Government were massively reducing spending in local government. The trouble with creative accounting is that it does not pay anybody’s wages. It may look good but does not actually deliver the goods.

This afternoon, however, I would like to be positive, first in ensuring that there is no doubt about my commitment to the review’s welcome recommendations on further education. When I asked an Oral Question in the Chamber last Thursday, I received a few emails saying, “Why didn’t you mention further education?” The Question was not about that—it was about the reduction in fee level and the likely impact on teaching and contact time, which I will come to a minute.

I want to make it clear that I am not unique in this House, but I am unusual in the sense that I got my qualifications before going to university, in evening classes and day release through further education. I then taught in further education. My older sons went through further education themselves to get to university. I helped to substantially reverse the cuts in further education between 1997 and 2001, when I was Secretary of State for Education and Employment, in one year actually increasing funding by 10% in real terms.

I am deeply committed to further education and to the concept of lifelong learning, including lifelong accounts and entitlement. The late and, in my case, very much mourned Malcolm Wicks, when he was a Member of Parliament, produced a very substantial policy paper on lifelong learning. I am only sorry that the efforts that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and I made in the early 2000s to put this in place were completely undermined by the Treasury, which simply would not go along with individual learning accounts. Had the child trust fund not been abolished in 2010 in an act of spite by the then Chief Secretary David Laws, we might have been able to build on that initial fund which would have had the advantage of balancing the asset divide in our country and providing a platform on which lifelong learning could have been based and lifelong accounts could have been provided.

In this report, however, the most welcome recommendations were of course funding for part-time learners, the reversal of the increase in interest rates, the maintenance grants that have already been spoken about, as well as funding for further education and lifelong learning. All those suggestions would of course be reversing what has taken place with the austerity measures of the past nine years. While it is important to reverse them, as has been said by my noble friend Lord Layard, it is important that we have a sustainable system for the future.

I want in the brief time available to me to pick up on what the right reverend Prelate said about the way small institutions can have a major impact on individuals and the locality. I speak as someone who still lives in the north of England. What worries me most about the debate on higher education is not the comparator between spending on HE compared with FE, which is well known, but the belief that there is something inherently wrong in encouraging young people from the kind of background that I came from to go into HE. Of course, people should receive the right kind of career advice.

In my teenage years in Sheffield, apprenticeships were not only a given but they had high status as well as high quality. They were often funded by the employer. In fact, the engineering employers and the construction industry of course had their own levy and their own sustainable system long before the welcome introduction although not necessarily the implementation of the current levy. We need to get back to high-quality apprenticeships, as has been said, but they are not an alternative to encouraging young people to go in for HE.

I say to my noble friend Lord Adonis that there may be comparators across the world in terms of the number now going into higher education, but it will be necessary, with the move to artificial intelligence, to robotics, to the way in which we need to understand and handle the use of algorithms to have people who are not only skilled in a practical sense but able to adapt, as the introductory speech of the noble Viscount indicated, in an ever-changing world where people will change jobs many times in their ever-increasing longevity.

I want to draw attention to the absurdity of the longitudinal educational outcome measures which are potentially distorting this debate about the value of higher education and the emphasis that is placed on what people earn in the first few years after leaving university. The interesting thing about the longitudinal studies is that they do not take account of self-employment, which is an important aspect of encouraging young people to show enterprise and innovation, particularly in the most deprived parts of our country, where we have high levels of employment but very low levels of productivity. Of course, the comparator between London and the south-east and GBA and GDP with the rest of England and of course in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is, frankly, extremely worrying. Such studies do not take account of part-time earnings, which are pretty important in relation to women, who often are taking time out in those first few years for childbirth or for caring responsibilities. Crucially, they do not take account of regional labour markets. They take no account of the fact that you might be paid £19,000 on leaving Trinity St. David in Wales or the University of Teesside in the north-east of England, but you might be paid up to £70,000 if you work for PwC, KPMG or financial and asset institutions in the City of London. That does not mean that the education received by people in the north of England is worth less. These are people who stay in their area, who contribute to the enterprise in that area, who often work in small or medium-size enterprises. They make up 90% of the employment in our country but often earn far less than those who come down to London to earn in the first five years after graduating. In other words, the debate about the value of education is wrong in principle in terms of the lack of understanding that education is more than what you earn and the job you have. It also has class implications and regional and socioeconomic implications.

I hope that we might address how universities as the core centre, the anchor institution in areas of our country that previously did not benefit from them, make a contribution to those communities and to regeneration. For some of the young people who stay in those areas, social mobility goes only one way. If we damage the university sector in our country by cutting funding to teachers and reducing numbers or discriminating against particular courses because the national press do not like them, we will regret it down the line. This is why the remarks made recently by the higher education Minister about participation and about foundation courses, if Augar is implemented, are so welcome.

We have got to get this right, not just for the moment but for the world of tomorrow. Thinking ahead involves apprenticeships and well-funded further education. It also involves a higher education system that offers to those who did not have it the opportunity of those who so often take it for granted.

18:48

[Lord Bichard (CB)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—which is just as well because I have spent quite a lot of time doing just that. There is a danger that we in the wider world and the educational establishment in particular will spend so much time debating the detailed recommendations in this review, not least the fees issue, that we miss the opportunity to promulgate and win ownership of the main message. That, of course, is that lifelong learning is a massively important subject which holds the key to tackling the big issues that will define our post-Brexit future.

It is the key to addressing our productivity deficit. It should be a cause of national shame that it now takes a British worker five days to produce what a German worker can produce in four. It is the key to addressing the lack of social mobility that blights our society and denies us access to so much talent that we have never needed more. It is the key to delivering the skills we must have if we are going to solve the health, social care and housing crises we face. And it is the key to ensuring that people are able to adapt to a rapidly changing world and to work effectively well beyond the traditional retirement age.

Given that all that is true, we might well ask ourselves —as, to be fair, the review does—why lifelong learning has been so neglected as to allow a fall in the number of level 2 adult learners from 550,000 to 160,000 in just five years; a 67% drop in those enrolling in the so-called other undergraduate courses, such as foundation degrees, certificates and diplomas; and a catastrophic 53% fall in the number of part-time HE students. It is no wonder that we have a productivity and skills crisis.

The question, of course, is whether Augar provides the answer. Inevitably, the answer to that is yes—with significant caveats—and no. It makes a powerful case for making lifelong learning a priority again. It recommends reintroducing maintenance grants, following the lead, let us not forget, provided by the Diamond review in Wales, which I hope the Government will also reflect on. And, as many noble Lords have said, it provides a rhetorical boost for further education. But the funds for that need to be found. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is absolutely right—this is not an aside—that it is deeply distressing that neither of the leadership candidates has committed funds or even mentioned the subject of lifelong learning, as far as I am aware.

There are positive things in the review, but also some things that are more troubling. I will mention just four. The first is that it places a disproportionate emphasis on graduate salaries as a proxy for the value of studying a course. That could distort future policy decisions on teaching grants in a very dangerous way. It could also be to the serious disadvantage of creative arts institutions—I declare an interest, having been a vice-chancellor of one for seven years. These institutions are central to the success of the creative industries, which in turn make an important but sometimes unrecognised contribution to the UK’s economic prosperity—something that Augar seems not to recognise or fully understand. That oversight is exacerbated by the review’s failure to acknowledge the structural deficit in funding that already exists for creative arts subjects. At the University of London, a recent independent review by KPMG showed that the cost of delivering undergraduate provision stood at £11,200, significantly above any tuition fee cap.

The second thing that worries me is the proposal to adjust the HE fees regime. This seems to me to be fundamentally flawed. The reduction in the headline figure, from £9,250 to £7,500, is in my judgment insufficient to change the mindset of prospective students, not least when the term for repayment is extended from 30 years to 40 years, the income threshold at which loans are repaid is reduced from £25,000 to £23,000 and the interest charges, post graduation, remain at 6%. Not recommending the CPI measure of inflation for revaluing student loans is indefensible: any of us who were present at the debate yesterday of the Economic Affairs Select Committee report will have heard very strong arguments as to why that is so. Taken together, these fee proposals are regressive, with the well-off paying less—something like £25,000 less during their life—while those on middle and lower earnings will pay some £12,000 more, according to the DfE. Given that the review recommends that the Government make good the loss of income to institutions as a result of these fee changes, and given that the fee changes are not going to benefit students in any great respect, this seems to be a flawed set of proposals.

My third concern is that the review does not do enough to tackle the issue of affordability for mature and part-time students, which has been a major factor in the massive decline in part-time study. The lifelong learning allowance seeks to address this, but if I read page 42 of the review correctly—the Minister will correct me if I have not—it applies only to new cohorts of school leavers and excludes anyone who already has a degree. That will limit the support available to retrain the current workforce at level 4 and above.

Some of our competitors have been more radical. In launching the Singapore SkillsFuture programme, referred to in the Augar review, Singapore’s deputy Prime Minister spoke of the global economy demanding nimble workers and the constant acquisition of new knowledge and skills. He said:

“We must become a meritocracy of skills, not a hierarchy of grades earned early in life”.


To help achieve that, every Singapore citizen now receives an initial credit of $500 towards the cost of skills training, while for Singaporeans over 40, up to 90% of the training costs of a Government-approved scheme is subsidised. Well, the majority of our workforce will shortly be over 45, and 40% of workers in the UK over 50 have received no formal training since leaving school. From those statistics, we may conclude that this is the moment for the UK to take a similarly bold approach. I assume that Augar felt that the cost of that would be prohibitive. I would rather that we saw it as an investment rather than a current cost.

My final concern is the failure to offer maintenance loans to students who study part time and via distance learning. I find this incomprehensible. As the Open University has pointed out, many of these students have no option but to study via distance learning, because of work or caring responsibilities, and they should not be penalised in this way. Indeed, they should be encouraged and incentivised. In Wales, that policy has been reversed, which has had a very significant and almost immediate impact—a 35% increase in part-time undergraduate students.

So the review is right to assert again the importance of lifelong learning, but any future strategy needs funds and political commitment. It needs to be progressive, not regressive, and it needs to tackle the issue of affordability and to encourage flexible distance learning. I hope that the Government will look carefully at all the Augar recommendations and consider them in that context.

18:57

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this debate and congratulate the Government on scheduling it. I also very much welcome what my noble friend Lord Younger said in opening about the funding of mental health services. I declare my interest as professor of government at the University of Hull and as chair of the Higher Education Commission, which draws together people from business, academia and Parliament. In commenting on what I see as the limitations of the Augar report, I do not wish to detract from its considerable strengths. Those derive from its breadth of coverage in addressing post-18 education.

As Disraeli put it:

“Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/1874; col. 1618.]


That quotation is especially relevant to today’s debate because the report is not confined to a specific—some would say privileged—group of people, the 18 to 21 cohort in or going into higher education, but looks more broadly at post-18 education. I welcome, as others have, its recognition of the importance of not only further education but lifelong learning and the need for flexibility. Further education has been neglected, to the detriment of society, as has the value of enabling people to learn at different points during their lives. I have taught mature students who realised their potential in middle age or even after retirement—the oldest student I have taught was a Member of this House, the late Baroness Miller of Hendon—and they tend to appreciate the value of education more than those who at 18 may take it for granted.

I therefore welcome the recommendations covering those subjects. I also welcome the acknowledgement of the crucial importance of career guidance, dealt with on pages 55 to 56. This might usefully have been expanded, given the difference guidance can make to one’s choice of education and career. It has a crucial bearing on many of the issues addressed in the report.

Like others, I welcome the recognition given to apprenticeships. The most recent report of the Higher Education Commission was on degree apprenticeships. The focus on apprenticeships in the Augar review is very welcome, but I stress the need to go further. As has been mentioned, SMEs represent the backbone of our economy—over 99% of businesses—but big businesses, levy payers, have made four times as many degree apprenticeship starts.

I was pleased to see the report echo the Higher Education Commission’s call for a body of work which examines the challenges preventing SMEs taking up the opportunities for degree apprenticeships. While a review will provide clarity, it has been abundantly clear for some time that the current funding system, which sees HEIs procure for non-levy funding, has resulted in a patchwork quilt of provision and frozen out many SMEs. The Higher Education Commission’s report notes that 63% of degree apprenticeship standards have no, or just one, provider that can deliver to non-levy payers. This needs to be corrected quickly to enable access for SMEs across the country. It is disappointing that the report does not call for the inclusion of all HE providers to deliver to non-levy payers, moving to bring non-levy payers into the digital service, as a means of mitigating some of the challenges facing small businesses.

The report makes it clear that degree apprenticeships are some way from achieving their potential. The Government’s ambition to improve productivity and social mobility is laudable, but they must ensure that degree apprenticeships sit within a co-ordinated strategic framework of education and skills that the country so vitally requires.

Although acknowledging the value of degree apprenticeships, there is no mention of the value to other degree courses of work-experience learning. I have spent the past 30 years organising placements in Parliament. When I started, such placements were a rarity. Today, their value is more widely recognised. Work-experience learning can produce graduates with enhanced confidence and skills appreciated by employers. The report, in the context of good information, advice and guidance, at page 55 mentions the positive impact of having contact with employers. Placements can be especially valuable for students drawn from disadvantaged backgrounds, broadening not only their skills but their awareness of what they can achieve. Given some of the pressures to reduce the length of degree courses, it is important to stress the value—to the student, to employers and to society—of gaining real experience in the workplace while also studying.

This brings me to the problems. Like others, my focus here is on higher education. I welcome several of the proposals, not least restoring maintenance grants and capping the rate of interest paid while students are still studying. However, as various responses to the review today have noted, the recommendations to reduce the fee and extend the repayment period are regressive. The proposals favour those able to repay quickly. Higher earners will pay back less than middle earners. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, emphasised, penalising those in lower-paid jobs will work against women and those in less prosperous towns and cities who decide to stay at home.

Universities will suffer from a reduction in fees if the Government do not fill the funding gap by increasing the teaching grant. Even if the Government meet the cost, in full or in part, there are dangers that the money may not be free of strings. Universities will still suffer in real terms, even if the gap is met.

The report recognises that the value of higher education extends beyond measurable economic benefits. As several noble Lords have stressed, there are benefits it is difficult, if not impossible, to measure in monetary terms. Even trying to measure it in terms of value for money, which the report does, has its limitations, given that many students today will go on to take up jobs that we cannot presently identify. I am also wary of government getting involved in subject choice. That is not the path we should be pursuing.

There is also the danger, as touched on by my noble friend Lord Patten of Barnes, of seeing HE in a domestic vacuum. Universities could face a triple whammy from cuts deriving from the recommendations of this report, from losses and uncertainty deriving from Brexit and from the threat to recruitment of overseas students because of aggressive marketing by our leading competitors. The position looks healthy in terms of current numbers but we are already losing market share. We are vulnerable in the light of what is happening elsewhere. My noble friend Lord Younger has said that we need to see the recommendations of the Augar review in the round. Would he acknowledge that we need to see the report itself in the round, taking into account these wider considerations?

The report is a serious contribution to addressing post-18 education and has a welcome breadth, with recommendations that, in the main, I very much support. However, there are qualifications. Would my noble friend agree that we need to be very wary of actions that may reduce student choice, increase state direction and disadvantage those on middle incomes? Would he care to comment on where the United Kingdom will rank in figure 3.2 of the report if the Government do not make up the funding gap if fees are reduced? Given that the report is, as my noble friend said in opening, part of a process and not an end point, could he give us some idea of the timescale for what happens next?

19:07

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I start by urging the Government to accept the recommendation of the report and restore maintenance grants in place of loans. I do so not solely for the sake of students’ finances but in the pursuit of genuine diversity and choice, which have been diminished in recent years. The Institute for Public Policy Research has reported on this and, taking that together with the Sutton Trust paper from last year, Home and Away, we see that the increased debt load if a student borrows to live away from home results in debt-averse students living and studying at home, with segregation as a result. They choose the nearest university. They will not meet diverse others with the same ambitions, but be reinforced in the social make-up of their home background.

Students from the least diverse areas go to the least diverse universities because they can afford to pick and choose. Ethnic minority students from London worry about studying outside the capital on grounds of racism. Moving long distances to university study has become largely the preserve of the better-off. According to the Sutton Trust, only one in 10 students goes to university more than 150 miles from home, while the rest are daily commuters. Does this matter? Yes, because social mobility is associated with moving to a large city and leaving the region of birth.

The older and higher-ranked universities have the most students who have come a long way from home; the others have the more local students. Therefore, the maintenance element has more social effect than tuition fees, which are the same for most universities. It is maintenance that affects choice. The report does not specify the level of grant that the Government will make available. Will they specify the level of grant that they will support, and recognise its importance?

I turn to an omission from the report—no doubt because of the unpredictability surrounding Brexit—of the financial effect of the recruitment of international students. As we know, the student loan system is in trouble. I will not go into that now. But we must recognise the gap between the fee income received by universities and the actual amount needed to teach and fund their other activities. The top universities—and remember how proud we are of our domination of the world league tables and hence our ability to attract the best international students—will be losing about £17.5 million a year, according to the Oxford University calculation. This is where I come to international students. Will this shortfall be entirely met by increased government teaching grants for subjects that are valuable to society and expensive to deliver, or will it be made up by international students?

I suspect that the Government will, in the end, let down the universities, because they regard some subjects as being more valuable than others. It is likely that the humanities and social sciences will see cuts in the order of 10% to 15%. The report argues that some courses are poor value, with low financial returns for graduates. There is great concern that the Government will accept the cut in fee but will not guarantee to make up the difference by increasing the central grant for teaching. The Augar report is clear that the two recommendations are connected.

Will the Government guarantee that the allocation of teaching grants in the future will reflect the cost of delivery, and abandon the practice of measuring economic value to the student and the taxpayer? Some of the students with the lowest postgraduate incomes, such as nurses and teachers, are of the highest value to society. Creative arts graduates may become stars, attracting audiences and influencing young people, without being rich. Every citizen who has benefited from the work of a doctor, an engineer, a scientist, a civil servant or a clergyman has benefited from their university education. It is not a matter of private benefit but of benefit to the entire society, and it is disparaging to treat university education as a matter of one individual seeking to increase his or her own lifelong earnings. The creative economy is important to the UK’s prosperity and to our reputation the world over. Humanities courses at good universities should not be penalised as a result of targeting low-quality courses at less well-performing universities.

Will the Government guarantee not to use their financial leverage to interfere with what subjects universities teach? Philosophers can become bankers, or someone as valuable to society as the late Baroness Warnock; economics at Oxford has brought us the right honourable Jeremy Hunt; classicists become bankers —or the right honourable Boris Johnson; lawyers become clergymen; and ballet dancers, dance being an academic subject, include the noble and multi-talented Baroness, Lady Bull.

If there is a shortfall in funding from fees, universities will turn even more urgently to recruiting international students in order to make it up. Current EU students are charged the same as home students, but in future they will be treated like non-EU students and charged much higher fees. Some predictions say that the number of EU students will fall, but not by very much. This is because British universities are, after all, at the top of the league tables and those in the rest of the EU much further down, so the bright European student will still want to come here and will go to the US alternative only if he or she can cope with the visas and even higher fees.

It is possible, therefore, that international students will contribute to the increased financing that our universities will need. They will be subsidising home students. Interestingly, the UK International Student Survey reports that prospective students from outside the EU are more likely to be interested in studying in the UK because of Brexit, perhaps because they believe it will be easier to be admitted, or because they feel that they will be treated the same as EU students. There may well be pressure—and there should be—for better treatment of international students in terms of visa restrictions and the ability to stay on after completion of a degree, which would be attractive to them.

There are some real risks here, however. The first is that we forget our commitment to access when it comes to international students, who have to be from wealthy families or supported by government scholarships to be able to study here. Their fees are two or three times higher than those charged to home students. Underprivileged international students will become a rarity, whereas at one time many future opposition leaders and heads of foreign Governments started as impoverished radical student leaders at our own universities.

Secondly, we are not making them as welcome as we should, a topic on which I have spoken before. International students need to be integrated, mentored, befriended in vacations, accommodated and supported to a larger extent than appears to be the case. Some of them feel that they are here only because they provide funding. If our reputation as a welcoming environment is damaged, that important source is at risk. Funding is also at risk if the Chinese or Indian Government, for example, change their policy or find visa rules simply too off-putting. A stoppage in that flow would ruin some universities.

Universities need to consider how they would cope if there were fewer international students. Some Australian universities, oddly, are moving to limit international recruitment because the financial reliance is unsustainable. Yet a cut in fees for home students without a promise that the Government will bridge the gap will mean a renewed chase after international students. The Government expect the total number to rise from today’s 460,000, who contribute £11.9 billion to our economy, to 600,000 by 2030.

Finally, the Augar recommendations come as a package. It would not be workable for the Government to pick, say, a reduction in fees and ignore the other recommendations that are inextricably linked to it. In this time of political uncertainty, can we be sure that a new Education Minister will take the report as seriously as current Ministers appear to do? What guarantee do we have of continuity in policy?

19:17

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, emphasised the international student dimension in all this. I am convinced that we repeatedly and constantly undervalue the importance of the international community in higher education. We live in a totally interdependent world. We have a great deal to learn from other cultures, outlooks and experiences, and the quality of our higher education is intimately related to the presence of a strong international community, especially among undergraduates, postgraduates and, indeed, academic staff. If this review has done nothing else, it has made an invaluable contribution by encouraging this House to concentrate on lifelong learning and to begin to look at the wood in higher education, rather than continuing an unhealthy preoccupation with the trees.

I will make some wider observations about higher education. We are constantly told that we are one of the wealthiest nations in the world. Millions of our fellow citizens go to their graves never having begun to appreciate what they might have been and what a full life they could have had. That is totally unacceptable. I have never quite understood why we have so easily drifted into this conviction that, whatever we are doing about funding in higher education, the concept of free higher education is no longer on our agenda. Why not? It is there for secondary and primary education. If we really take the fulfilment of our fellow citizens seriously, why should this not be an overriding priority that deserves consideration? This is about not simply the financing of higher education but the esteem in which higher education is held. That is why so much of what has been said in the debate is so important. It is about how that is reflected in the quality of life of the academics and others who provide educational facilities through their contribution.

I also believe that it is right to emphasise going back to the concept of quality apprenticeships and what that can mean; as ever, I was fascinated by my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s contribution on that point.

We must take seriously the confusion that has arisen in discussions, particularly in political quarters, about education and training. We need highly trained, highly skilled people—that is indisputable—but training itself is not education. Education is about enabling people to discover themselves and fulfil their potential, academically and creatively or in another way. For example, I grieve that so many of our fellow citizens have never really been able to enjoy, access or be excited by classical music. Last weekend I was at the opera with my wife and a friend. I looked at the audience and thought that, although it was a wonderful experience, it did not begin to be a socially representative one. Why should this be? Why should other people not get the same joy and pleasure from an occasion of that kind as we do? Our education also means that we can enjoy an art exhibition, crafts and literature. Why should it be that only a small section of the population has the opportunity to read and fulfil a great need through what they derive from great writing, be it fiction, non-fiction, historical or biographical? We need a bit more idealism in the debate about our strategy for education. We are saying that we in the United Kingdom want to live in a society that pats itself on the back not only for being one of the wealthiest nations in the world but for the quality of life of its people, with all their potential.

In making these remarks, I am a little surprised that we have not really mentioned the Open University and the extension courses provided by many universities across the country. They have been invaluable. It is also true, particularly in the history of the political movement to which I belong, of places such as Ruskin College, which has made a fantastic contribution over history to the emancipation and fulfilment of people from the working classes.

We need lodestars. I would assert that the crucial one for education is making maximum life fulfilment for all our citizens our ideal—that is, making sure that all citizens are enabled to discover what they are capable of being. It is not just about what they earn; their experience and quality of life are so important. Our deliberations and this interesting review must be judged in history by how far they carry us forward in our idealism for education as distinct from our functional management approach to higher education.

19:26

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking the Minister for the thoughtful way in which he introduced this important debate. In doing so, I declare my interests as professor of surgery at University College London, chairman of UCLPartners and a member of your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee, which is chaired so ably by my noble friend Lord Patel.

Quite rightly, the debate has welcomed many of the findings in this important review in achieving the important objective of driving forward greater equity in post-18 education and emphasising the importance of providing opportunities for our fellow citizens to avail themselves of lifelong learning. However, I will concentrate on the potential implications of some of the report’s recommendations in terms of our universities’ ability to conduct research.

Of course, it is clear that the question of research was not in the review’s remit or terms of reference, but it is important for Her Majesty’s Government, when considering the review’s recommendations, to understand how they might have an impact on the capacity of higher education institutions to conduct research. Clearly, those institutions are complex ecosystems where potentially affecting one funding source will have knock-on implications on universities’ ability to perform other functions, such as research.

As a country, we recognise the importance of research for our future national interests. Of course, we have a newly identified target to devote 2.4% of GDP to research and development expenditure in our country by 2027. That is important, but many people have argued that it does not go far enough to secure an innovation economy that will be able to compete globally in the decades to come. Nevertheless, that is the target. To achieve that expenditure, we will need to produce by 2027 at least 150,000 graduates capable of contributing to that research and development effort in both the public and private sectors.

Yet when we look at our universities, the research base is vulnerable, as things stand. We know that, despite the objective of achieving full economic cost recovery for research in our universities, this is currently not being achieved. On research expenditure for Research Council projects, universities have to find some 28% of the cost from other sources. If one looks at research supported by the European Union, universities have to find 35% of that cost from sources other than the funding source for that particular research. From UK charities, they have to find some 40% of the cost, and even for industry-supported studies, some 22% shortfall is identified in the funding provided for those research projects. Overall, in the year 2010-11, some 78% of full economic cost was recovered from the funding source. In 2016-17, that had fallen to 69.4% of the full funding requirement. This cost universities in that particular financial year some £3.7 billion of funding that they had to find beyond the support provided from research. Clearly, that is an unstable situation. Bearing in mind the importance of that research to our broader national interest, that is something that needs to be considered.

Your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee has recently been receiving evidence for its inquiry into the funding of the research base in universities and heard from members of the independent Augar review at a session last week. Members of the review rightly identified that this was not a question for them but doubted that there was a very significant cross-subsidy between the tuition or teaching income and research activity in universities. However, evidence provided by the universities themselves to that same inquiry indicates that there is a very substantial cross-subsidy between teaching and research, some of it from domestic tuition fees and a substantial amount from international tuition fees. Therefore, when the Government consider the important and justifiable recommendations on increased support for further education and lifelong learning, they must consider how they are going to address the question of stabilising the research base in our universities.

As we heard from my noble friend Lord Patel, on the one hand there is an important move towards greater equity for our fellow citizens, as demanded by the education establishment, but on the other hand we must be clear about how we secure a research base to drive broader economic benefits. In this regard, do Her Majesty’s Government believe that it is appropriate to undertake some kind of formal evaluation of potential cross-subsidies in our universities, understand what the extent of those are and then determine how best to address them? Do they believe that there should be cross-subsidy between teaching—whatever the source of that teaching income—and the research base? If they do not, how would they propose to address that question going forward in a more transparent fashion?

The other issue about which I am concerned in respect of securing the research base in our universities is the future disposition of the teaching grant and the particular emphasis on the teaching grant being set in some way with regard to either the social or economic value of the taught subject. This is an interesting concept. Will it apply purely at the national level, where the subjects being identified in that fashion would then have a teaching grant equally distributed across institutions, or will that assessment be made for individual institutions in terms of the economic and social value derived from an individual subject? Which institution or body will undertake that evaluation and what metrics will be used to determine that? This is an important question because, if teaching income is in some way going to continue to cross-subsidise research, will research metrics also inform that particular evaluation?

Then we must consider other government policy, such as the industrial strategy that has a place or geographical emphasis, for instance on the development of the northern powerhouse. That could equally be affected if the teaching grant for subjects undermines the capacity and sustainability in universities. It might undermine the capacity to deliver that broader geographical agenda with regard to the industrial strategy and drive a research base for economic development in different regions of our country.

19:34

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his introductory remarks. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Willetts, who very helpfully this morning dropped off a copy of his rather weighty tome, A University Education, with a note saying, “I hope you find Chapter 3 useful, which is how to pay for it”. I am afraid that this will have to wait for holiday reading, and I look forward to that. He is very sorry not to be here today. I also declare my interest as chancellor of Writtle University College.

British universities have a worldwide reputation for excellence, and deservedly so. These institutions play a vital social and economic role in our country. Many are world- class, but many are not. The necessity of a review into post-18 education and funding is indicative of a broken system. There are serious issues to address regarding the price of tuition, who should bear responsibility for paying these costs and the long-term value of university courses for those who undertake them. The Augar panel has asked the right questions and its report contains the right analysis. For instance, it was right to expose the scandal of low-value courses and highlight the undersupply of graduates in strategically important sectors.

This increasing prevalence of low-value courses is particularly worrying. To illustrate the point, research from the think tank Onward has shown that 41% of students are enrolled on courses which delivered earnings of less than £25,000 after five years. However, it gets worse. Onward’s report, A Question of Degree, reveals that nearly one-fifth of male students are enrolled on courses that deliver lower graduate earnings than work or technical education. In other words, they would have been better off not going to university. Male students doing creative arts, communications, English, agriculture, psychology, philosophy or language degrees are more likely to earn less after three years at university than if they had spent three years in employment or doing a technical course. At some universities, male students doing these degrees can expect to earn less on average than the national living wage five years after their graduation.

For the average graduate, the fee loan scheme acts as a 9% permanent tax for the duration of the payments. This means that graduates who are higher-rate taxpayers can face a marginal tax rate of 51%. This is truly striking, given that the Government have abolished the 50p tax rate for the very highest earners. This is hardly a temporary tax. Due to the high interest rate of CPI plus 3%, unless graduates manage to quickly land a job paying a substantial salary, they are unlikely ever to pay off their student debt. In fact, 83% of students will not repay their loans in full. They will effectively be paying this additional 9% marginal rate for the next 30 years of their lives.

Let me illustrate this with two brief case studies. If we model the repayments of a high-flying graduate versus those of the average graduate, there are some points worth noting. For a high-earning graduate—someone in the top 5% of earners within five years of graduating—the total value of their debt would start shrinking around four years into repayments. After 15 years, it is fully paid off: that is, the debt and the interest. The total repayment equals roughly £88,000. For the average graduate, at no point would the total value of their debt decrease. Due to the high rate of interest, the debt will keep climbing some years after graduation and they would be unlikely to repay that loan for 15 to 20 years or even longer. At the end of this period, when the debt is written off, they would eventually have accumulated £164,000 of debt and paid a total of £75,000. I hope that I have got those figures right, but how on earth can this be right or make sense?

Incentives are currently structured so as to encourage some institutions to inflate their student population, with little regard to the quality of education. They do this by abusing unconditional offers, and the results of this can be striking. Those universities that issue unconditional offers sparingly—less than 1% of their total offers—deliver average graduate earnings £8,000 higher than those universities that issue the most unconditional offers, more than a third of their total offers. To give a particularly egregious example of this phenomenon, one university hands out 76% of its offers as unconditional offers, but it delivers earnings five years after graduation of only £17,000 for women and £20,000 for men. Universities that are abusing unconditional offers in this way, to pressure sell their degree courses, leave students worse off than vocational alternatives with a higher earnings return.

It was a bold and admirable vision to give more people, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, the opportunity to attend university. But as the examples that I have given show, growth in student numbers has not benefited all young people. Many of those young people understandably feel angry and aggrieved and, as a result, 44% of people think that too many students now go to university, compared with only 25% who think that too few students go to university.

This does not apply across the board. Many British universities are of course world-leading institutions. But a small number are ripping off students and giving university a bad name. We do this current generation of students no favours by cramming them on to courses that saddle them with decades of debt repayments, the full costs of which are complex and difficult for school leavers and their parents to comprehend, while simultaneously delivering little or no financial return on their investment and hard work.

This unfolding debacle is a disaster for intergenerational inequality. I was a member, along with the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, of the Intergenerational Fairness and Provision Committee, and we detailed in our recently published report that the millennial generation is likely to be the first to be worse off than their parents. We risk exacerbating this inequality if our broken and unsustainable higher education funding system is not fixed.

While the Augar review presents a detailed and welcome analysis of these problems, we are right to question the solutions. I am not convinced by the proposal for an across-the-board tuition fees cut from £9,250 to £7,500 which does not tackle the issue of low-value courses or make funding fairer. It would only help future students, rather than all those recent graduates and current students who would still spend the next few decades haunted by the spectre of persistent debt. It would create unfairness between these two groups—the damaging cohort effect—and would leave the intergenerational inequalities between recent graduates and their parents or grandparents unaddressed. An across-the-board cut in the headline cost would render some valuable courses unviable—courses with relatively high running costs such as those in STEM fields. But it would leave some courses in place, which would be poor value even at the lower rate.

Indeed, there is already support for prioritising funding for higher-value courses. Polling by the think tank Onward shows that a quarter of people are in favour of using taxpayer money to reduce fees for those students studying science, medicine, nursing, engineering, and maths; and young people aged under 35 were the most supportive of this idea.

Poor-value degrees and a broken repayment system are letting down students at the expense of the taxpayer. Of course, we need to look at reducing the cost of university, but in a way that is fair and helps current students as well as recent graduates. We must also look carefully at rooting out courses that are making school leavers a false promise, delivering low earnings and huge debts. But we must also end the unacceptable situation where young people finishing university face higher marginal tax rates than millionaires. We cannot go on like this. The next generation deserves better.

19:43

[Lord Luce (CB)]

My Lords, I will focus my remarks in particular on the accelerated degree mentioned in the Augar report, but first I welcome the fact that so many speeches in this debate have concentrated on the really important recommendations in the Augar report relating to those 50% or so post-education people who are not in university. Those recommendations will, I hope, provide the better skills that are needed in an increasingly technological age, and encourage better jobs, more social mobility and a growth in productivity—and, I hope, will achieve greater parity of esteem with universities. The proposal for lifelong learning allowances is particularly imaginative.

As far as the other 50% are concerned—those in university—I, like others, welcome the proposal to introduce maintenance grants for those in need, but I join the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in being concerned about the regressive effects of reducing fees to £7,500 per annum and including the extension of the payback from 30 to 40 years, which could lead to middle earners losing out while the better off may well benefit. The challenge is to protect and guarantee the unit of resource for each student, and to do this, as we have heard, would require the injection of an extra £1.8 billion by the Government. Judging by past experience and all the increasing bids being made in the present debate by the two potential Prime Ministers, I am not very confident that that can be achieved.

We have had very impressive speeches in this debate by noble Lords with wide experience of education, and I have learned from experience that it is much wiser in this House to speak on a subject that you know something about. Therefore, I am limiting my remarks to the accelerated degree mentioned in the Augar report—better known in my mind as the two-year degree—which needs to be part of the pattern of choice that the Augar report so strongly recommends. I declare an interest as a former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, so dynamically led today by Sir Anthony Seldon. The University of Buckingham, as everyone knows, has pioneered over 43 years the two-year degree.

I welcome the overall aim of the report, which is for more flexible learning opportunities, more diversity and more choice. The two-year degree fits into this pattern. I am glad that the Government have declared their aim to encourage the two-year degree. But we must ask ourselves why only 0.2% of all students—about 4,500—study the two-year degree today. The impact assessment for accelerated degrees produced by the Government forecasts growth in the next decade in two-year degree students of between 23,000 and 40,000 students. But to succeed in this requires two things. First, there must be more awareness of the value and availability of the two-year degree. Secondly, we must get the incentive right through the fees structure.

On awareness, on 28 February, the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, helpfully circulated a letter following the debate on the regulation of accelerated degrees that revealed a remarkable lack of awareness and knowledge of the two-year degree. The Student Loans Company customer survey of 2018 showed that 92% were glad that they had chosen a two-year degree rather than the standard one, but 55% of the standard degree students had never heard of the accelerated degree, of whom 60% said that they would consider an accelerated degree if they were starting again as a fresh student. That demonstrates the need for there to be a major effort by the Government and universities to increase awareness, knowledge and understanding of what is involved in a two-year degree—the Minister referred to the term “more informed choice”.

To be clear, at the University of Buckingham, students save one year of living costs and tuition fees and are released one year earlier for a job or to carry on with further education. Over two years, with four terms a year, there are 80 weeks of studying and 24 weeks of holiday. In a three-year degree, there are the same number of weeks of study but 18 months of holiday, achieving the same standard of degree. It is not therefore surprising that the University of Buckingham has come top of the national student survey for student satisfaction and top in the teaching excellence framework, and that employers are deeply impressed by the motivation, judging by the jobs that the students get. It clearly suits certain types of students—not all, but certainly mature students and many who are highly motivated at a younger age.

Secondly, we should get the incentives right to encourage more two-year degrees. The fees for them are now at £11,100 per annum for approved fee-capped providers. Students will pay 20% less in fees over two years than in three, but universities will have to provide 50% more teaching for an income that is 20% less than for three years. The University of Buckingham judges that it needs to charge £12,500 per student in order to achieve high standards, but that means that it is an approved provider and loses some of the other advantages of fee-capped providers. In these circumstances, for-profit and other universities may be tempted to go for cheaper courses, for example in business, law or accountancy, rather than engineering, science or medicine. This could undermine the reputation of the two-year degree.

So I hope that the Government will examine the possible implications of the Augar proposals for reducing fees by £2,500 and look at the options for the two-year degree so that there is no disincentive to people going into those courses. The Government will need either to reduce the two-year degree fees proportionately, from £11,100 to £8,900, or to simply freeze the fees for two-year degrees at the present level, whereas the three-year degree fee will be reduced to £7,500. I simply ask the Minister that the Government give careful consideration to the options here, so that assurances can be given that the priority is to incentivise and encourage the two-year degree through a fee structure as well as by other means.

19:52

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chancellor of Cranfield University and as chairman-designate of the Royal Veterinary College.

I support calls by many Peers for improvements in further education and benefits for the 50% who do not study for a higher degree. However, I am unsupportive of many of the Augar proposals for higher education, although perhaps I ought to be more statesmanlike and follow the subtle way in which the noble Lord, Lord Patten, praised the report and then systematically demolished it.

First, on the reduction in fees, Philip Augar says that the report is a package that cannot be cherry-picked. He says that the reduction in fees must be reimbursed in teaching grants to universities by the Treasury. I hear the sound of hollow laughter on both these points. This could just end up being a major reduction in university funding. Philip Augar is on the record as saying that he believes universities have had a bonanza time since the introduction of fees and that the amount of capital development currently happening on campuses is a sign of that. He even recommends removing the 10% future sustainability element of the fee structure, which is aimed particularly at ensuring that universities stay well developed, well housed and well equipped for the future. He recommends freezing the average per-student resource.

All these seem very short-sighted. If the Government’s industrial strategy is to be delivered, if the post-Brexit strategy of the UK as a world player in industry, research and economic development is to be delivered, if the research budget is to be increased to the government target of 2.4% of GDP, universities have to be well resourced and have excellent facilities for teaching and research. They must also have good student facilities if they are going to continue to attract the brightest and the best students and teachers globally, as well as benefiting the national economy, the UK’s standing and students and businesses in this country. So a cut in fees that was not reimbursed by the Treasury would come upon universities when they can least take it because they are already facing pressures from a loss of confidence in the UK as a result of Brexit. There has been a reduction in EU student applications, additional demands for funding for pension schemes and growing competition from the global higher education sector.

My second set of worries is: if the Treasury were to have a rush of blood to the brain and reimbursed the loss from fees in the way in which Augar proposes, I would have concerns. Reimbursement being targeted to qualifications that are high-value for students and taxpayers puts excessive emphasis on post-graduation salary performance. I am a classics student with a postgraduate degree in business studies—that denigrated subject—who earned hardly anything for the first few years I was employed. I seem to have come reasonably good in the last half of my life, but I would not be a candidate for a course that was highly valued by Augar. We could face a situation where focusing entirely on economic benefits would denigrate and devaluing courses in arts, humanities and those professions with lower post-qualification salaries. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, gave an eloquent exposition of how this would penalise courses taken by entrepreneurs and public servants who take up lower-paid jobs and contribute markedly to their local communities.

The idea of prioritisation also flies in the face of the Robbins principles that he outlined comprehensively and cogently in the introduction to his report. He said that there were four objectives of higher education—skills to play a part in the economy, promotion of the general processes of the mind and its powers, advancement of learning and the transmission of a common culture and standards of citizenship. Robbins added a sneak fifth one: participation by institutions in the life and culture of the community. He said that higher education needed to deliver all these and not just be about, in modern parlance, skills for the industrial strategy and value for money for government and students. We must preserve these Robbins principles because they are important and integrated.

I was taken aback that in his report Augar said that in the face of the changed funding arrangements there should be no bailouts for failing institutions. What about left-behind communities if their local institution that participates and adds hope for the future in the local community fails? Philip Augar says that that is a matter for the Office for Students. That leads me on to another point of concern. If the Treasury reimburses the loss of tuition fees, the money will no longer go directly to the universities but be mediated by the OFS, which does not seem to be the right body to make important decisions on what the national future priorities should be for skills.

My third point concerns the vexed question of cross-subsidy between different activities in universities. I happen to believe that cross-subsidy is an excellent thing. Subsidies are wide and varied: a major one is the cross-subsidy from overseas tuition fees to research and higher-cost courses. But they come into play across the full range of income streams, from the state, corporate concerns, commercial ventures and philanthropic income. The flexibility that this gives universities to spend the money they raise in the most effective way is very important. The changes proposed by the Augar report mean that there would be much more central direction from government and the OFS. Is this what we really want? Is not the principle of academic freedom important? Should we not be encouraging universities to be even more entrepreneurial and innovative, rather than being directed top-down and focusing their efforts on providing things that attract a higher teaching grant?

The Augar report worries me in another way—it feels dangerously close to being politically driven. The scenario goes thus: Jeremy Corbyn and the Liberal Democrats say that they will cancel tuition fees. The Conservative Government have to offer something to students to get their vote. These proposals would benefit only some students, as the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, outlined. So I will finish by putting some questions to the Minister. Will he confirm that the Treasury would reimburse any tuition fee cuts? Will the Government adopt Robbins rather than Augar principles for targeting any reimbursement? Above all, will the Minister commit to the much-needed improvements in further education, but not funded punitively at the expense of our universities? This is not a zero-sum game—this is where Philip Augar got it wrong. What we need is both a thriving higher education function and a thriving further education function.

20:00

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

My Lords, first, I declare my interests as chair of the board of governors of Sheffield Hallam University and chair of the UPP Foundation Civic University Commission.

Philip Augar and his panel have, in my view, produced a thorough and thoughtful review that deserves serious attention. It describes post-18 education in England as a story of both care and neglect, depending on whether students are among the 50% of young people who participate in higher education or in the other half—the rest. In my view, the report is particularly strong in its recommendations to tackle the neglected part. Many other noble Lords have spoken about this and I will not repeat what they have said, but I shall highlight two recommendations from the report.

Ensuring that the route to further education is as streamlined, consistent and clear as possible, and providing additional capital and revenue support to reverse some of the previous catastrophic funding reductions are the two recommendations that I particularly commend as deserving widespread support. Addressing this disparity is, as Philip Augar said, a matter of fairness. I hope that today the Minister can give us an assurance that the recommendations on further education will be taken forward without delay. The Augar report is also surely right to recommend reversing the decision to replace the maintenance grant with loans and bringing back a grant of at least £3,000 for disadvantaged students.

On a personal level, I am pleased that the report recognises two key issues from the Civic University Commission report that I chaired: the need to restore part-time adult and continuing education and the importance of the civic role of universities.

Where the Augar report is less convincing for me is in its analysis and in some of its recommendations on higher education and, in particular, on student fees and loans. I believe that this is in good part due to the review having to reconcile four conflicting elements in its brief: delivering a headline reduction in student fees; sorting out the chronic funding issues in further education; avoiding a cap on student numbers; and keeping within the current funding envelope.

Those four things individually make sense but collectively they do not. They risk significantly weakening higher education finances, while doing little to assuage young people’s feeling of unfairness about the costs that they currently incur. Freezing fees for a further three years will amount to a real-terms reduction of 14% once the rising costs of pensions are taken into account. Fees will then have been frozen for a decade, apart from a £250 increase in 2017.

Reducing the maximum fee to £7,500, unless fully covered by government funding, will have a drastic effect on the finances of most universities. Some would struggle to survive and all would certainly need to curtail their spending on performing their civic role and on wider student support. The changes in fee levels, interest rates and repayment terms will benefit students on higher incomes post graduation and hit hardest those on middle incomes post graduation, as the IFS report in our excellent Library briefing makes very clear. Equally seriously, students may well see this as a sleight of hand—the headline fee level comes down but the total effective cost increases.

If we go beyond the question of fees, fundamental questions are raised about what universities should provide and how to establish whether that represents good value to the taxpayer and the student. The Augar report looks at these questions but, for me, it does not provide compelling answers. Judging the value of a degree on future earnings, for example, strikes me as a very limited approach, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, the data is particularly weak.

None of that is to suggest of course that universities should not review their course provision to meet the needs of the local economy or strive to get the best possible job outcomes for their students, as we do at Hallam. However, this is likely to be best done through local initiatives and through the civic university agreements rather than through top-down prescription by government.

In having this debate, we are in danger of forming a perception of a typical student that is some way from being a general truth. At Hallam, for example, over half of our students are the first in their family to go to university; around a third are commuter students who travel from home; and half of them stay in the wider region on qualification.

Finally, I would like to make two important general observations. First, Augar will have done us a great disservice if it creates a false dichotomy between further and higher education. Restoring the deeply damaging cuts in FE and increasing the number of those at levels 1 and 2 who go on to benefit from further education is its own distinct issue. There is no great nobility in austerity that should compel us to transfer funding from one part of the sector to the other.

Secondly, the Government need to move speedily to complete their own part of the review following the Augar report and bring forward recommendations. It is worth remembering that the Augar review was commissioned in February 2018 and was intended to be published in time to allow the Government to conclude their review by early 2019. We now have a commitment to report by the time of the spending review, but with the uncertainty of Brexit it is far from certain that we will get a full spending review in November.

Any delay in the Government’s report will bring a definite planning blight to the sector, for both potential students and the higher education and further education sectors. We need a prompt and definitive response from government. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond on both those final points.

20:08

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is always a privilege to speak in your Lordships’ House but noble Lords might wonder why I am spending my birthday waiting to speak in tonight’s debate. I should perhaps declare that I received a technical education and studied at a further education college, so I could not let the opportunity pass to influence what happens as a result of the Augar review.

I am of course delighted that the review recommends more investment in this much-neglected area of adult education. The remarks made by many noble Lords this evening in support of technical and vocational education and their recognition of the importance of further education colleges have been very encouraging. However, funding alone is not enough for us to address the inequality and unfairness that exist between those who go to university and those who do not.

The EU referendum, the 2017 general election and Donald Trump’s election in the US all exposed educational attainment as the biggest, most significant divide in our society. Non-graduates were more likely to vote leave in the UK or for Donald Trump in the US, not because, as some highly educated people have—I would describe as insultingly—suggested, people did not know better or because those who voted that way were stupid. They did so in part because they have lost faith in too many of those more highly educated, highly qualified people whom they feel have disrespected or disregarded much of what matters to them and who, for all their qualifications, have got so much wrong. It is really important for us to understand that. As much as your Lordships have debated a lot of matters to do with Brexit over the past two or three years, I am still unsure that enough of us do. When non-graduates voted predominantly to take back control in 2016, they were voting for change—to be heard and be taken seriously.

Rebalancing the importance and status of different types of education, skills and talents is one of the most fundamental changes that those of us in positions of power and authority must make in response. However, we must understand why it is important that we do. It is not just about more skilled people, as much as we need them. If we get our response right on this very important matter, we will open up new channels for people to reach the upper echelons of authority, which are now a closed shop for graduates. In doing that, we will create the conditions to devolve more power. If that happens, we will all collectively achieve more.

The first step to getting there is recognising that good technical education is not a consolation prize for people incapable of doing a degree. We need to give technical and academic education equal status. The attitudes and behaviours needed to succeed are the same for both. Recognising this will allow common bonds to be more easily formed between university and FE students, graduates and non-graduates. We need to respect and cherish not just what is the same about students who follow different paths but the differences, which are vital to increasing our collective success and expanding the rewards. Some of us learn to know; others learn to do. Some of us learn through study; others must observe and absorb through practical experience to gain and retain expert knowledge. This does not make some of us intellectually inferior. It means that we bring something different. We will often see the world differently, join up different dots and paint a different picture—very often, the bigger picture. Not encumbered by theses, we often see things more clearly and for what they are.

Our collective success relies on mutual respect. The more we understand how much we need each other, the more we will achieve. That is how we will start to bridge social divides, create more opportunities, expand the benefits of wealth and, most important of all, make it possible for people with different types of education and skills to be in positions of power and influence. That is what social mobility should mean, not more young people following the same route to one definition of success. The real test of our success will be if Members of this House and the other place—and anybody in positions of real achievement—genuinely welcome their children or grandchildren coming home and saying that they would rather go down a vocational or technical route than follow the more traditional path to university. That is when we will know that there is a genuine mutual respect and opportunity for all of us who are dedicated, work hard and want to succeed in whatever line of work we choose. I do not know whether Augar is the answer. Whatever policy we adopt, this is what we should be seeking to achieve.

20:15

[Lord Mair (CB)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration of interests in the register. In particular, I point out that I am an emeritus professor of civil engineering and director of research at Cambridge University.

When the Augar review was published, the headline recommendations were that the cap on higher education student tuition fees should be reduced from the current £9,250 per year to £7,500, and that the term of repayment should increase from the current 30 years to 40 years. However, there is significantly more in the comprehensive, 200-page report, with potentially very important consequences for higher education and substantial benefits for provision in further education. The report’s findings and recommendations for further education—which has been overlooked for so long—are most welcome aspects. This has been noted by many of your Lordships in the debate. Yet almost all the media coverage has been focused on the impact on higher education.

The recommendations in relation to further education could have a potentially major impact on reviving the fortunes of vocational and technical education; these are also critical for engineering. It is highly significant, for example, that in Germany 20% of 25 year-olds have a higher technical qualification, whereas in the UK the figure is only 4%. I therefore warmly support the report’s recommendation that the Government should provide FE colleges with a dedicated capital investment of £1 billion over the next spending review period. This is in addition to funding for T-levels, allocated in line with industrial strategy priorities. I also strongly support the recommendation that the Government should restore maintenance grants of at least £3,000 per year for socio-economically disadvantaged students.

These two recommendations alone clearly have important financial consequences for the Treasury. However, there is a danger that other important financial recommendations in the report will not be adopted, particularly in the current uncertain political climate. Reducing the higher education student tuition fee from £9,250 to £7,500 would mean a very considerable reduction in fee income to universities. The Augar review clearly recommends that the Government should replace in full this lost fee income. If the Government decide to reduce the tuition fees as recommended but not to replace in full the lost fee income, there will be considerable financial strain on the universities.

If the lost income is not replaced by the Government, universities will be faced with tough choices. Faced with a cut in income for teaching, there is a risk that they will decide to cut provision in expensive courses such as engineering, despite the country badly needing more engineers. There is potential for the unintended consequence of universities reducing the cost of engineering and other physical science courses by reducing or removing the most expensive elements, such as practical, design-based, hands-on, active- learning modules, and instead increase the classroom-based content. This would be a regressive step that would mean graduates would not have the practical experience increasingly demanded by industry and by the industrial strategy. The damaging effect might be felt most acutely by post-92 universities, which are using industrial, hands-on experience as a selling point and do not currently have the reputational protection of Russell group engineering courses.

It is very clear that the Augar review has taken a systems approach to the funding of the whole post-18 landscape. In Dr Augar’s own words to the Science and Technology Select Committee of this House, it is,

“a coherent package, and all parts are intended to fit together”.

The report’s recommendations make sense for financial sustainability only if implemented as a whole. It would be highly risky to cherry-pick and implement only individual recommendations in the report.

The key principles of the recommendations for higher education are a proposed fee cut and a directed top-up; in other words, a managed market. There may well be difficulties with the directed top-up, which entails the adjustment of teaching grants for different subjects. The Augar review recommends that the teaching grant attached to each subject be adjusted to reflect more accurately the subject’s reasonable costs and its social and economic value to students and taxpayers.

How is the social and economic value of a particular subject to be determined? The review recommends that this be determined by the Office for Students—OfS—taking account of the subject’s relative importance with respect to alignment with the Government’s industrial strategy and a range of other factors, such as the financial viability of the university and its contribution to the local economy. This exercise by the OfS will be far from straightforward and is bound to be controversial, as has been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.

Any measure that seeks to assign value to courses based on social and economic value is likely to favour engineering. Engineering courses typically offer some of the best value for money for the taxpayer in terms of economic returns and graduate salaries. However, while more money for underfunded engineering courses is to be welcomed, it must be understood that modern engineering is a multidisciplinary endeavour that increasingly relies on close collaboration with the arts and social sciences. Any changes in funding must not adversely affect universities’ ability to produce outstanding graduates in these sectors.

It is imperative to guard against a Soviet-style approach in which only science and engineering are regarded as worth while. There must not be a risk of penalising important disciplines such as languages, social sciences, humanities and arts in favour of STEM subjects. I fully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, on this point. By assigning to the Office for Students the task of assessing which subjects should receive larger teaching grants, which may affect the viability of putting on certain courses, there is a real risk of undermining the autonomy of universities. This is surely highly undesirable.

My final point relates to the effects of the Augar review on research. This has already been addressed by the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar. It is important to note that many, if not most, universities already lose money on two core activities: home undergraduate education and research. This is because they do not recover the full costs of these activities through tuition fees and public grants, nor through charity and public research contracts. They therefore subsidise both these activities, as well as access work and bursary support, from their own resources, distinct from student fees and public grants. Although no cuts are envisaged by the Augar review, what the Government decide to do is another matter. In the event of any funding cuts, universities would need to switch a greater proportion of their own resources to subsidising education and student support. For example, at Cambridge, my university, a £1,000 cut in the funding currently received for each home undergraduate would mean a net loss of £10 million per annum to the university. This would represent a considerable opportunity cost for other crucial activities. It would be at the expense of not only funding outreach and access initiatives but meeting the costs attached to research.

It is therefore most important that any changes to the funding resulting from the Augar review do not impact on the sustainability of research and innovation activities within UK universities. It is also important that changes in funding do not discourage the young from pursuing STEM subjects. If the Government’s stated ambition of 2.4% of GDP being spent on research and development in science is to be met, this will require a 50% increase of active researchers in the UK. That means we will have to attract considerably more people into STEM subjects. If this does not happen, we will not deliver the 2.4% agenda.

In summary, the Augar review is comprehensive and contains important recommendations. It is excellent on the long-underfunded further education sector, which stands to benefit substantially from the review. This is to be welcomed, and it is crucial for higher education that the Government fully compensate universities for the recommended reduction in tuition fees. A pick-and-mix approach will have serious consequences. The proposed adjustment by the Office for Students of teaching grant for different subjects is far from straightforward, and bound to be controversial. Finally, it is vital for the country that our world-class research is not jeopardised in any way by the Augar review.

20:26

[Lord Turnbull (CB)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating Philip Augar and his review team on a thoughtful and comprehensive report on post-18 education and funding. Alongside housing and long-term care, this is one of the three great unresolved issues crowded out by Brexit.

The area they investigated was looked at last year by the Economic Affairs Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and I are the survivors here this evening. While some of the details are different, Augar has come up with pretty much the same conclusions on the key questions. The first, and by far the most important, is recognising the division between the university graduate stream, comprising about 50%, and the non-graduate stream. The fact that no one has come up with a name that identifies the other 50% by its positive characteristics, rather than by what it is not, is symptomatic of the problem. The graduate stream has been heavily favoured—the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, would probably say pampered—in recent years, and the other stream has been neglected, even vandalised. This has produced a divide in our society. It is the San Andreas fault which runs down through Britain, corresponding closely to the polarisation of the Brexit debate and the north/south divide. It is a crucial blockage and is growing concerns about social mobility.

At the start of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, set out the simple figures: 1.2 million undergraduates in higher education receive £8 billion of public funding and 2.2 million in further education receive £2.3 billion. Noble Lords can work out the arithmetic for themselves, but it is pretty indefensible. The report identifies a gap between level 2 and level 6, describing it on page 33 as “the missing middle”. I would describe it as more like a blasted wasteland. The problem is that someone who reaches only level 2 at school rarely goes on into this middle zone, still less beyond. Those who do reach level 3 overwhelmingly opt to go straight to level 6. This has represented a decline in the middle-level qualifications that we used to be familiar with—HND, HNC, BTEC and so on. This fault line is divisive, unfair and quite unlike anything seen in other countries. It does not map on to where the UK has the greatest skill shortages. The balance must be redressed, and if we take one message from the report, this is what it should be.

The second headline conclusion is that what was called the student loan scheme had a solid rationale—that students who benefit from graduate studies should contribute more than those who do not—and should be repaired rather than abolished. But Augar rightly argues that it should be described as what it really is: a student contribution scheme. All sorts of distortions have come into the scheme as it has been modified over time. The review has come up with a counterproposal of its own. I prefer a scheme with a £7,000 fee and a teaching grant, provided that it happens and is intelligently used, to one with a £9,000 fee and no teaching grant.

The third conclusion is that the university sector, of which we are rightly proud and which contains some genuinely world-class institutions, has developed some bad habits, largely induced by the funding framework, inflation of costs and salaries, and the encouragement to recruit as many students as possible using devices such as unconditional offers and grade inflation. Augar points out that some of this expansion has provided poor value for students and for the nation. Significant numbers of graduates have emerged struggling to find work of the quality they expected and to earn enough to pay back the loans. Many disillusioned graduates would have done better to go through other channels, had they been of suitable quality. Augar is quite blunt about this. The report is reluctant to return to micro-control of student numbers but recommends putting universities on notice that they must address poor-quality courses and poor outcomes.

The next major observation is that abolishing the means-tested grants was a mistake. When the Economic Affairs Committee spoke to students, their major grievance was not about the repayment system, which they under- stood quite well, but about maintenance that was enough to live on during their years of study. I believe this was a decision taken for what I would call dishonourable motives, by which I mean it was done to produce not the best educational outcomes, but what looked best in the way the public accounts were drawn up. Make it a loan and it can be written off 30 years later. That game is up thanks to a recent belated decision by the ONS to change to an accounting treatment that recognises write-offs from the start.

I also welcome the lifelong learning allowance and, in particular, the abolition of the equivalent learning qualification rules, which have been very damaging, restricting the ability of adult students to choose a course that takes them on to the next stage and provides the skills that they want.

There are details that I have reservations about. I do not think that the real rate of interest should remain at 3%—and still not if added to the RPI. This is higher than the long-run growth rate of the economy and the long-run growth rate of earnings, as the recent briefing note from the Library tells us. In consequence, debt will tend to rise faster than the ability to repay it. I prefer the EAC’s recommendation that students be charged what it costs HMG to raise the money: the 10-year gilt rate. I suspect the dead hand of my alma mater, the Treasury, because the interest cost is treated as current income.

I also wonder about the 40-year repayment period, which means that graduates will still be making repayments into their 60s. Another part of the policy framework will be encouraging people of precisely that age to start putting money aside for long-term care. I am not sure that they can really do both. However, one should be wary of picking bits from the package. The cap on interest payments and delaying the real interest rate rise from kicking in until studies are completed might off-set some of my concerns.

By the time I came to the section on apprenticeships, I thought that the review was rather running out of steam. The present regime is severely flawed and underpowered. A lot more needs to be done to breathe life into a scheme that can provide an excellent earn-as-you-learn route into the world of work.

I am picturing a school reunion 10 years hence. One student asks another, “What have you done?” He says, “I got a degree, I’ve had various jobs since, but I still haven’t found the job that I want, so I don’t think I’ve really started my career yet”. The other says, “Well, I got a rather good apprenticeship, I’ve been working for the same employer, I’m loyal to them and they’re backing me, and I’ve nothing like the debts that you’ve got”. Eventually the word will get around that there are other good options beside university, but they will be taken up only if they are adequately signposted. Also, I strongly agree with the recommendation that degree-level apprenticeships should not be made available to those who already have a degree.

What should happen? The Government should stay firm to the principle of redressing the balance, even though they will face opposition. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Layard, advised us, it will happen only if the mechanisms to make it available are there. Simply saying that the money is there will not be enough—we need to find the people, the institutions, the mechanisms and someone in the Government to champion this. The other major change is that there needs to be a lot more education of teachers, careers advisers and parents on what the options are and how one does not have to pursue a straightforward degree, but can pursue other things and thrive perfectly well.

20:36

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for initiating this debate on the long-awaited Augar review. We owe a debt of gratitude to Philip Augar and his team for such a comprehensive review, and like the noble Lord, Lord Patten, I welcome the fact that it is clear and very well written. Like my noble friend Lord Storey, I thank too all those who sent briefings for this debate—far too many to credit, and many of them came yesterday, which is a little late for many of us who try to plan our speeches slightly ahead of time. We have had some wonderfully insightful and informed contributions from all around the Chamber this evening.

Dr Augar was speaking to the All-Party Parliamentary University Group last week, and he expressed his disquiet that all the attention has been on the university proposals, particularly the proposed reduction in student fees, whereas, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, made clear, the reviewers were more concerned that we should look at these proposals in the round, and more concerned to publicise further and part-time education, and adult learning. But ’twas ever thus. Further education and vocational qualifications have always been treated as the poor relations, when in fact they are the bedrock of the country’s economic prosperity and quality of life, and it is really good to know that they served so well the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell.

I repeat my concern that vocational qualifications have been renamed “technical” qualifications. So many work-based skills are craft, not technical, yet this new terminology suggests that craft is not important. At meetings of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Craft, we have heard from inspirational people who make watches, hand-crafted paper or embroidery, and from expert stitchers who work closely with surgeons to share skills which can be beautiful and save lives.

I am a vice-president of City and Guilds, and have long been totally convinced of the value of practical skills, which are sadly undervalued. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Layard, about his part in the Robbins review in 1963—the last time that any report from a Government addressed part-time study. The Open University, Birkbeck and other proponents of part-time study warmly welcome the attention, and, broadly, the proposals in this report. I declare an interest as a fellow of Birkbeck.

The report recognises the role that further education colleges must have in aligning the skills system with the needs of the economy—particularly at levels 2, 3 and 4—and in delivering high-quality alternatives to traditional three-year residential bachelor’s degrees, as well as enabling more adults to progress to intermediate skill levels. It understands that employers and communities need more high-quality technical and professional education and training, industry-standard facilities, expert staff and the unique curriculum that colleges already provide. Colleges are the key vehicle for the flexible, local delivery of national strategies, supporting industrial policy, productivity, skills development and genuine social equity. It clearly acknowledges that all this requires real investment. We need more investment to answer the calls from business and in direct response to the pending challenges of technological change and Brexit.

In the realm of post-18 education, FE has been the prime victim of financial cuts, policy churn and the insistence on market solutions. As other noble Lords have said, it is illogical, damaging and unfair that over the last 10 years colleges have had to deal with an average funding cut of 30% while costs have increased dramatically. Further education is the only part of the education budget to have had year-on-year cuts since 2010. The value of staff pay has fallen by over 25% since 2009 and staff turnover rates in colleges averaged 17% in 2017, with the hardest-to-fill posts still being teaching jobs in engineering, construction and mathematics.

One in 20 college students study a higher education course in a college. This is nothing new. Colleges have been running higher education courses since the 1920s. Some 218 colleges provide undergraduate and postgraduate courses, and they provide 86% of technical foundation degrees.

We have long expressed serious concerns about adult and lifelong learning. Funding for adult education has had a cut of 62%. In the last 10 years, we have seen total enrolments for adults drop from 5.1 million to 1.9 million. The Open University has seen dramatic decline, as has Birkbeck—both great institutions, which have given people second chances at education, have changed lives and made major contributions to quality of life and to the economy. We need adult skills to make up for the inevitable shortfall from young learners as their numbers decrease.

There is a compelling need for a fairer society which works for everyone, based on a strong economy in which businesses can be even more productive. We certainly support the Augar recommendation for a national adult education network, building on the existing FE college network. While this call for revenue and capital funding is welcome and long overdue, we would also recommend investment in adult learning facilities in the wider community. These may be more accessible for adult learners who respond to more informal settings than an FE college.

We are concerned at the emphasis in the report on courses and qualifications which are “economically valuable”. There is a risk that this may narrow the curriculum, particularly at the expense of arts and humanities. At entry level and for non-accredited courses in adult education, arts and humanities courses can be an accessible starting point for learners, and indeed continue to have value at all levels. When national vocational qualifications were introduced, the much-maligned level 1 often opened the gates for those with few or no qualifications and gave them a taste and a confidence for learning. Learning to learn is important among disenfranchised non-learners.

We support the lifelong learning loan allowance, but we acknowledge that adult learners may be averse to loans. I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate that nurses may very well be averse to taking out loans. Like the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, we were sorry to see the demise of the individual learning account. In this space, we would prefer the personal education and skills accounts proposed by Sir Vince Cable’s lifelong learning commission with contributions, which can be used at appropriate times for learning.

We welcome the abolition of certain restrictions concerning the equivalence and intensity of courses. The equivalent or lower-level qualification rule has had damaging effects on people’s learning. Could the Minister say what exactly the lifetime learning allowance actually means, especially in relation to the ELQ rules? Further clarity on that would be helpful. Giving the student more flexibility by allowing funding to be used for one module at a time, without having to sign up for a full qualification, is welcome. This was the practice with NVQs, where units could be acquired which could eventually lead to a full qualification. When I worked for City and Guilds, we contested the change in funding as we could see the real value in unit accreditation, but funding was available for full qualifications only.

Between them, universities are spending over £1 billion a year on measures to improve the access of disadvantaged students to higher education, but there is a need to clarify the statistical basis on which disadvantaged students are identified. Like other noble Lords, I strongly support maintenance grants. We continue to express disquiet over the metrics of the teaching excellence and student outcomes framework. The Royal Statistical Society has decreed these to be profoundly unreliable. We look forward to Dame Shirley Pearce’s review. Can the Minister say when we might expect this? I think the answer may be “shortly”.

The National Student Survey continues to register high levels of satisfaction overall with the courses that students are getting, which should be reassuring. Like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I note that education in many areas is devolved to the four countries of the UK. What are the implications of Augar for the four countries of the UK? The only university to cover all of the UK is the Open University, which is obviously watching the outcome of this review with interest.

If the reduced tuition fee is introduced, what reassurances can the Minister give that expensive courses—in science, engineering, technology and medicine, as well as many of our wonderful creative arts—will not be targeted? Another concern which I expressed to him last week is that minority subjects might disappear, in particular some of the minority languages where retaining proficiency is significant for international relations as well as security. Universities see real threats to the humanities and social sciences from these proposals.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, that graduate salaries do not reflect the value of their studies, and with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the quality of life. One university has expressed to me that, with Brexit and Augar, life would be very tough and that trying to maintain the extraordinarily high record of our universities would be extremely challenging.

On the repayments, we see the changes as discriminating against disadvantaged graduates—especially women, who these days still tend to have disrupted careers. Like the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, I query why the interest rate is still at a swingeing RPI plus 3%. Will this be reviewed?

As a last question, the 2018 CBI/Pearson education and skills survey found that 60% of employers rate skills such as resilience, communication and problem solving among their top priorities. Does the Minister agree it is therefore vital that courses across all disciplines, including arts and languages, are properly funded to provide these skills, which workforce employers need?

Once again, I give our thanks to the Augar panel. This review should give a real incentive to those in further education and colleges—a boost to be in their rightful place thanks to the massive contributions they make to the country, the community and individuals. While we still have some concerns, and look forward to those being addressed, I look forward too to the Minister’s reply and the Government’s response. We shall watch with interest the actions which should be taken as a result of this welcome review.

20:46

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for leading off this debate, and for persuading his colleagues in the usual channels to have the debate in the first instance. I ought to declare my interest in this: I am one of those who had his education rescued by further education. I went to an old tech college, which served me well and meant that I did not end up at what is now described as a low-tariff university. I enjoyed the benefits of that university education.

The debate has been wonderfully illuminated by a stellar cast of speakers. I have enjoyed all the contributions that I have listened to, particularly those of our colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, my noble friends Lord Adonis and Lady Blackstone and others who have far more knowledge of, and insight into, the world of higher and further education than I can muster. A contribution from my noble friend Lord Blunkett on this is always worth listening to.

It is true that post-18 education funding is a highly politically charged subject, and fraught with difficulty. What is clear is that the current system is not working for students, particularly those from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds, or of course for the FE colleges and universities as they struggle to plug the staggering funding gap of around £1.8 billion a year. Since the long-awaited Augar review was published on 30 May, noble Lords have had several, albeit brief, opportunities to question the Government on the various elements covered. I am in no doubt that colleagues around the House share my frustration at the lack of commitment on those occasions to implement, or indeed preclude, any of the 53 recommendations made. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, was right to say that we are unlikely to get any real answers to the Augar review until well past the initial spending review; it may be in October or November.

It is clear that decisions will certainly not be forthcoming while the Conservative Party is engaged in an internal conflict over its leadership. It is obviously not capable at this stage of taking action to ensure that the extra funding and reforms which our system of education urgently needs are put in place. I too observed, as did the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Storey, and others, that, interestingly, as yet neither of the two candidates vying to take over from Mrs May has approached the Tory money tree and given it a shake to see if more money for the FE and HE sectors will be forthcoming. No doubt they are worried that Philip Hammond will give them a wigging before they take office.

The review’s recommendations include some positive measures. We certainly welcome the focus on encouraging more flexible learning, including support for more bite-size courses, with improved opportunity to ensure that the most diverse range of learners can benefit from both further and higher education.

The report recommends the reintroduction of maintenance grants for disadvantaged students. Along with many others in this debate, I agree that a grant of at least £3,000 a year and an increase in the amount of teaching grant funding that follows disadvantaged students, as well as a greater focus on individual-level measures of disadvantage, such as free school meals and household income, in the allocation of funding through the student premium are advisable. As the Prime Minister now admits, the Government’s decision to abolish grants worth about £3,500 and replace them with additional loans that will have to be repaid was a huge mistake—a mistake which has left some of the poorest students saddled with a lifetime of debt. I hope the Government will accept these proposals with the commensurate level of funding required.

Inevitably, as colleagues have noted, the debate about the Augar review has been dominated by the proposals relating to universities, which included cutting tuition fees from £9,250 to £7,500; extending the repayment term from 30 to 40 years; and reducing the loan repayment threshold from £25,000 to £23,000. I must say that my youngest daughter did not welcome the idea that she would still be paying for her education as a pensioner. She thought that this was a signal failure in the report.

However, the modest reduction does little to address the problem of the expanding burden of student debt which puts many young people and families off seeking a university education. On the contrary, lowering the repayment threshold and extending the repayment period before the debt is written off is an inherently regressive proposal that will increase the total payments made by lower- and middle-income earners particularly —including the professions, teachers and nurses—while providing relief for those on higher incomes. Indeed, as other noble Lords observed, Universities UK estimates that those changes would result in middle-income earners paying back more—£11,000-plus over their lifetime—while higher earners would pay back less, saving in the region of £19,000 in repayments.

Other colleagues have observed that the LSE highlighted that this would disproportionately impact on female and black and minority ethnic students. For those who leave university owing £50,000 or more, with an interest rate of 6%, the cumulative effect can be eye-watering in terms of the impact on personal finances. The higher education finance system needs to be more progressive, not less. How can these changes, particularly for graduates paying off a debt that lasts 40 years, possibly encourage more talented, disadvantaged young people to see university as an option? This is why Labour supports the abolition of tuition fees completely.

Although the report recommends that the Government increase central funding, the fear is that these recommendations, if adopted, will generate costs to be borne by universities and colleges which are already struggling to plug the funding gap. The report contains scant analysis of how this wider reduction in headline tuition fees will impact on individual universities. These institutions are often big employers in their communities, and the risks it would create for their financial sustainability and stability are not to be underestimated. Although some universities will increase their efforts to recruit more lucrative high-fee-paying international students, the reality is that without a substantial and appropriate increase in central government funding, the shortfall will grow, to the detriment of students and the wider society, which benefits from a skilled workforce.

Of course, not every university has the option of seeking new student markets abroad. Some are commuter universities, reliant on a more local customer base. These smaller, modern local universities tend to have the most diverse intake of young people and are therefore core engines of social mobility. They are most vulnerable, as they do not benefit from alternative funding streams in the form of research grants or international and postgraduate students.

Other institutions, encouraged by the lifting of the student numbers cap, have ramped up significant support service costs too, expanding accommodation and teaching capacity. Budget shortfalls will inevitably mean reduced spending, involving redundancies, recruitment freezes and smaller annual wage rises. Any practical and reputational damage to universities will also decrease the number of highly skilled employees that business needs and reduce our international competitiveness precisely at a time when modern Britain needs it most, facing, as we do, a potentially disastrous Brexit. Cuts will also inevitably mean reducing the other services universities provide for their students, be that academic—courses offered, contact hours, resources and equipment —or support in areas such as mental health and employability.

It is hardly reassuring for students and parents, who are increasingly asking whether university courses offer value for money. Choosing to study with a higher education provider is a big decision, particularly given the cost of tuition fees and the commitment in time, with the commensurate loss of earning that comes from studying instead of working either part-time or full-time. Students and prospective students are increasingly questioning whether a university course represents value for money, and are looking carefully at what they can expect to gain from their education, both during and after their studies. However, the array of factors is not fully reflected in the review, which places a disproportionate emphasis on graduate salaries as a proxy for the value of study. While the panel claims to be making no judgments about the worth of different degrees, it parrots the common line that some courses are low-value because of the low salary levels of some graduates.

While graduate outcomes are undoubtedly a key consideration, such a measure is fundamentally flawed, as earnings data does not take into account self-employment or business ownership, which is the route for many graduates; nor does it account for long-standing structural inequalities in pay between men and women. Moreover, many graduates leave university and work in jobs that are vital to their community, wider society and the economy, or in regions that have lower than average pay. Determining the value of courses in terms of earnings ignores their contribution and importance. Education has always been more than simply a vehicle by which people can make more money for themselves. In our view, using such a crude metric would be a serious mistake, risking undermining student choice and creating incentives that could have profoundly undesirable consequences.

This can plainly be seen when we consider the importance of the arts to the rich cultural fabric of the UK. However, creative arts degrees fall foul of this approach, with the review questioning whether they,

“constitute good value for taxpayers’ money”,

given that they require more government subsidy than other degrees, because graduates are less likely to pay off their student loans as they do not earn enough over the current 30 years to pay back the full amount. The IFS estimates that the public subsidy amounts to about £30,000 per student for those studying arts and humanities subjects such as English, communications and media, and as much as £37,000 for those taking courses in the creative arts. The equivalent public subsidy is £28,000 for engineering students and £24,000 for those studying maths and computer science. The irony is that by extending the payment window to 40 years, this situation is much less likely to occur. The creative economy contributes significantly to the UK’s prosperity and comprises a large and growing share of UK jobs, with a substantial share in almost every UK region. Creativity also contributes to the wider public good. I hope the Minister can assure the House that future funding policy will be based on a broad range of factors beyond simply graduate salaries.

The review makes a number of recommendations relating to further education, proposing that the reduction in the core funding rate for 18 year-olds be reversed and that the Government should provide FE colleges with a dedicated capital investment of at least £1 billion over the next spending review period. The recommendations on improving the funding for further education and improving the grants and loans financing for vocational courses are, of course, welcome. While we welcome the overarching desire to change the relationship between further and higher education, we feel that the proposal to freeze HE funding for three years to help fund investment in other parts of post-18 education is unhelpful. Such a proposal represents a false choice, as it is a lack of parity with schools that has hit the FE sector harder in recent years. That is why Labour has committed to bringing funding for 16 to 18 year-olds in line with key stage 4 baselines and restoring the EMA for 16 to 18 year-olds from lower- and middle-income backgrounds.

The Augar review was designed by the Prime Minister to solve a problem of perception: that the current Government did not understand students and, in particular, student finances. Philip Augar was given a narrow range of options to work within to come up with answers to an impossible question. He has made a brave effort to answer other, wider questions about the financing of FE and HE education. Sadly, he has come up short, particularly on funding, although for our part we will continue to focus positively on those parts of the report worth looking at, especially those which make a start on undoing some of the damage that has been done to the FE sector over the last few years.

21:00

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, we have had quite a debate and I am most grateful for all the contributions made today. Such debates in the House of Lords are often not just informative but forward-thinking, and today is certainly no exception. There have been many interesting insights and ideas promulgated, and we are listening. One point is certain; many Peers have praised the quality, thoughtfulness and thoroughness of the Augar report, and it is good to know that it is broadly welcomed and recognised.

I will address the points that have been made. Let me start with some remarks on student finance. Unsurprisingly, many Peers raised this issue, including the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Patel. The panel’s recommendations on student finance are detailed and interrelated, and cannot be considered in isolation. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education set out when the panel’s report was published, we will need to look carefully at each recommendation in turn and in the round to reach a view on what will best support students and the institutions they study at, and what will ensure value for taxpayers. This will include such proposals as the in-study and post-study interest rates, the proposed reduction from £9,250 to £7,500, the longer payback period, up from 30 to 40 years, and maintenance grants, about which I will be making some remarks later.

In answer to my noble friend Lord Norton’s point about the wider issues to consider, he is right; we should be thinking about links to the industrial strategy, to future skills needs and to research. I will be speaking more about that issue, which was raised not least by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar.

To set a marker, the Government and the review panel are in agreement that the costs of post-18 education should be shared fairly between learners and the taxpayer. The taxpayer subsidy of higher education is a conscious and significant investment in the long-term skills capacity of our economy. It is crucial in enabling everyone with the ability to benefit from post-18 education to undertake it.

In my opening speech, I noted that our student funding system is progressive, with built-in protections for borrowers, but that those elements are not always well understood. My noble friend Lady Jenkin highlighted this fact and detailed it in her speech. I understand the concerns that she raised. She gave several examples, but I will give one whereby a graduate earning £27,725 a year will repay their student loan at a rate of £15 per month. Our income contingent loan system makes sure that student loan contributions are affordable and progressive, and that any unpaid loans are cancelled after 30 years at no detriment to the borrower.

The most recent forecasts from my department show that around 30% of plan 2 full-time higher education entrants in the academic year 2018-19 are expected to fully repay their loan within their 30-year repayment term. This rises to 45% for part-time higher education borrowers and 70% for master’s loan borrowers. This applies to all 53 recommendations, including those on student finance.

On the subject of the timetable, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Norton and the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Bassam, we will be concluding the 18-plus review at the three-year spending review in the autumn, and not before. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, about the TEF, Dame Shirley Pearce’s review—as I mentioned in the Chamber I think last week—is expected later in the summer. Maybe that falls into the category of “shortly”.

Moving on to student finance, the teaching grant is an important issue raised by a number of Peers, including my noble friend Lord Patten, the noble Lords, Lord Patel, Lord Kakkar and Lord Mair, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. I was pushed to give a categorical guarantee on teaching grants by the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Young of Old Scone, the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. As they might expect, I cannot do that today, as I made clear in my opening speech.

I do, however, have some remarks to make. We want to ensure that universities continue to deliver world-leading education and are properly funded to do that. Since 2012, the total income of universities in England has increased by around £6 billion, driven by rising student numbers and the amount of funding they receive. Resource per student is at a near-historic high: the IFS estimates that the 2012 reforms increased real funding per student by almost 25%.

It is, however, true that the current context presents significant challenges to institutional management, efficiency and financial planning in the higher education sector. The leaders of higher education providers, which are autonomous bodies, are responsible for ensuring their institutions’ financial sustainability. Those leaders are adapting to a more competitive, uncertain environment and must continue to rise to the challenge.

The Office for Students will continually monitor and assess higher education financial sustainability, working closely with any provider that shows increased risk of financial difficulties. As I have made clear, however, neither the OfS nor the department will prop up failing providers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, raised the subject of higher education funding and sustainability. She said that she found it hard to believe that the cost of English had risen faster than that of chemistry, and that the fees are often higher than the cost of the provision itself. However, alongside the Augar report the Government commissioned a detailed study, through the good offices of KPMG, of the costs of provision, and this will form part of the evidence base for consideration alongside the report. This issue was also, I think, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.

We have given the OfS powers to ensure that all registered higher education providers have student protection plans in place to safeguard students’ interests, including against the risk of provider financial failure. The DfE also contributes to the teaching costs of higher education by providing the teaching grant to eligible providers via the OfS. This funding promotes student choice and skills for the country by maintaining the supply of high-cost subjects through support for teaching costs that exceed the tuition fee cap. Through the teaching grant provision the Government also support a range of important activities, such as access, successful participation and specialist provision.

In 2017-18, total higher education income in England was £32.3 billion. Tuition fee income represented nearly 50% of this, with universities receiving £15.7 billion in total from home, EU and non-EU students. Furthermore, it is important to mention that in 2018-19 the Government provided almost £1.4 billion in teaching grant funding to higher education providers, of which £681 million was steered towards high-cost subject funding and £277 million went to support the students most at risk of discontinuing their studies.

The Augar proposals on maintenance grants are another important subject, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Mair, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and others. It is essential that we provide the right support to enable people from all backgrounds to access and succeed at university and other higher-level courses. That is why students from the lowest-income households now have access to the largest-ever amounts of cash-in-hand support for their living costs, as I said in my opening remarks. Living costs support increased by 10.3% for eligible students on the lowest incomes in 2016-17 compared with the previous system, with further increases of 2.8% for 2017-18 and 3.2% for the current academic year, 2018-19. The Government have announced a further 2.8% increase for living costs for the 2019-20 academic year to a record amount. We have also recently made a number of changes to support part-time and mature learners. This academic year, part-time students are able to access full-time equivalent maintenance loans for the first time. To clarify, I assure noble Lords that we will look carefully at the Augar proposals with respect to maintenance grants.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester mentioned nursing bursaries, so I will make a few remarks. On the question of a public service covenant—an interesting idea—the right reverend Prelate may be interested to know that in our Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategy we have committed to rolling out phased bursaries for more subjects and will announce further details in due course. Our teacher student loan reimbursement pilot also aims to increase recruitment and retention in biology, chemistry, physics, computing and languages. Teachers of these subjects who qualified from the 2013-14 academic year onwards and teach in one of the 25 eligible local authorities can apply for a reimbursement of their student loan repayments. Applications for such reimbursements open this autumn. I would be pleased to meet the right reverend Prelate to discuss his idea and take it further.

The previous funding system for nursing, midwifery and allied health profession students was not working for patients, students or universities. Training costs were largely borne by the NHS, resulting in a capping of the number of trainees. The tuition fee model means that universities can offer more nursing places and students can access more funding than under the bursary system. Under this system, healthcare students will typically receive an increase in financial aid of up to 25% while studying. The Department of Health and Social Care has opened new routes into nursing for those who do not want, or are unable, to study for a full-time degree at university; this includes the nurse degree apprenticeship and the new nursing associate role.

Many noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lord Patten and the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Mair, mentioned higher education research. We recognise the important contribution of universities to research, innovation and working with business. This is critical to achieving the ambitions of our modern industrial strategy, including delivering a spend of 2.4% of GDP on R&D by 2027, a target mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. That is why, since 2016, the Government have committed an additional £7 billion for R&D by 2021-22 through the National Productivity Investment Fund, the largest increase since records began. We are committed to making sure that funding reflects a sustainable model that supports high-value provision, meets the skills needs of the country and maintains the world-leading reputation of UK higher education. This includes not allowing the credibility of our world-class universities to be damaged by pockets of low quality.

My noble friend Lord Patten spoke about higher education autonomy. As he will know only too well, we enshrined that issue in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, in which I played a part. We must remember that universities are autonomous. The Government’s role is to create the right conditions so that universities can respond to our economic and strategic priorities. Our ability to direct universities is therefore necessarily limited in legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, raised concerns about the sustainability of research funding if and when fees are reduced. We will also work with the Office for Students to make sure that overall funding supports high-value provision, supports access and successful participation for disadvantaged students, and maintains the world-leading reputation of UK higher education. I assure him that it is very much on our radar.

I should also like to touch briefly on value for money for higher education, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and others. I say again that outcomes are not just about economic returns. We want to ensure that higher education improves the lives of students and the wider society. Even within subjects, however, data shows that there is a variation in returns across institutions. Every subject for men and most subjects for women have at least one institution that offers a negative return and one with a positive return. As I said in opening, we want to equip students with the information to make the right choice for them about where and what to study.

The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and my noble friend Lord Patten stated that the review placed too much emphasis on graduates’ salaries as a proxy for value, to the detriment of creative arts institutions, for which there is already a deficit in funding. In response, the Government, via the OfS, provide funding to support the cost provisions not met by tuition fees, including for art and design. The Government also provide funding to specialist providers with world-leading teaching, including providers that specialise in performance and creative arts. This funding totals £44 million for 2019-20.

I will touch briefly on contact hours, which is an important subject raised not least by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. It is clearly an important consideration for Government because contact hours for students, and particularly the information on contact hours, is known to be an issue. The Government consider that it is important for students to have clear and accurate information about their course, including methods of assessment, expected workload, contact hours and information about total costs. Consumer protection law can provide important protections for students in this regard, but providers should ensure that they meet their legal obligations. Again, this is something that Augar has touched on and we will be looking at carefully.

I turn now to a very important area raised by a number of Peers, that of further education and levels 4 and 5. We want our workforce to have world-class skills and we want our education system to provide opportunities for everybody to improve their position in life. That is why we are undertaking a review of higher technical education at levels 4 and 5 to ensure that these qualifications can better meet the needs of learners and employers and benefit the economy. We expect to publish our higher technical proposals for formal consultation this year, in 2019.

The matter of levels 4 and 5 was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and my noble friend Lord Patten. It is interesting that they both made a series of points about further education funding and specifically about further education teachers’ pay. We have also made significant investment in further education, specifically in teaching. Since 2013-14, we have invested in further education teachers and leaders. As part of our package of support for further education teaching, we have invested £20 million over two years to prepare for the introduction of T-levels, which, the House will know, are coming in in September 2020. To reassure the House, this is not to say that more cannot be done, but there has been some progress.

More meaningfully, I want to address a point raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Garden, my noble friend Lord Patten, the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and my noble friend Lady Stowell, whom I wish a happy birthday today. All of these Peers raised the importance of further education. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that further education had been poorly funded. My noble friend Lord Patten said that it had been treated rather badly by Conservative Governments: I think the word was plural rather than singular. I recognise that appropriate attention to our college sector—the backbone of technical education in this country—is required to ensure that technical education is an equally valid path for a young person as academic routes. If it was not clear in my opening speech, I emphasise now how important it is to promote further education for all pupils and students.

In the meantime, we have protected the base rate funding for 16 to 19 year-olds for all types of providers until the end of the current spending review period in 2020. Overall, we plan to invest nearly £7 billion during this academic year so that there is a place in education or training for every 16 to 19 year-old who wants one. Our commitment has contributed to the current record high proportion of 16 and 17 year-olds participating in education or apprenticeships since consistent records began.

On the question of skills raised by the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Bichard, our reforms to the skills system place employers at the centre, making the system more responsive to deliver the skills that employers need and which the economy demands. Skills advisory panels aim to bring together local employers and skills providers to understand and address local skills challenges. That is why £75,000-worth of funding has been allocated to all local enterprise partnerships, mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority to help build their analytical capacity.

Flexible learning is a big subject. It includes the decline in part-time learning and, importantly, the accelerated degree which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Luce. The Government recognise the importance of studying part-time and the importance of promoting accelerated degrees or even undertaking degrees over a longer period of time. The benefits can be brought to individuals, employers and the wider economy. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, it is for all people to fulfil their potential. He is right. Shorter degree courses appeal to those who want to retrain and enter the workforce more quickly than through a traditional course. We have legislated to increase the total tuition fees for accelerated courses to make them more affordable. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Luce, that there is much more to be done to market two-year degrees. We have spoken about that, but on the back of the regulations that we have taken through the House, I very much expect and wish that to happen.

Time is rather against me and I want to make some concluding remarks, which means that I will have to write quite a long letter to noble Lords because there are a good number of questions that I have not addressed, including career hubs, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I also wanted to make a few points about career management, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Turnbull. We are doing a lot in that area, as I have said in the Chamber before, but let me put that into a letter.

Certainly, on apprenticeships, I am pleased to say that we are having a debate on Thursday. I have a lot to say on apprenticeships, which were mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Layard and Lord Aberdare. I will write a letter. Maybe I can combine it with a letter on the back of the debate on Thursday—who knows? We will have to wait and see. Productivity is also very important. I could spend ages speaking about the importance of productivity.

But I conclude by recognising what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said about the OU. I pay tribute to the OU and wish it a happy 50th birthday because it embodies the ideal that no one’s background or circumstances should hold them back from a university education. I was lucky enough to pay a visit to the OU the other day. I found it fascinating I was struck by the sophistication of the technology there.

Once again, I offer my deep gratitude to the Augar panel for bringing its recommendations, which the Government will consider in turn. I look forward to further discussions on this important subject.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 9.23 pm.