House of Commons
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
Gigabit broadband roll-out is accelerating, and as a result of the steps that the Government are taking, full-fibre coverage has doubled in the past year. We have introduced legislation to make it easier for operators to deploy broadband in blocks of flats and will legislate to mandate gigabit connectivity in new builds, while providing £5 billion of funding to support the roll-out in hard-to-reach areas.
Robert Courts
I was delighted when this one nation Government announced a £5 billion package to roll out broadband to the hardest-to-reach areas, but can the Minister tell us when we will see that money being put into action, so that places such as west Oxfordshire can benefit?
Matt Warman
As my hon. Friend knows, through our rural gigabit connectivity programme we are already putting £200 million into some of the hardest-to-reach places, not least in west Oxfordshire. The £5 billion of funding, which we will talk about in much greater detail in the Budget and beyond, will see us work with local authorities, particularly in areas such as west Oxfordshire, to get this broadband rolled out there as quickly as possible.
Gagan Mohindra
Does my hon. Friend agree that no business should be held back because of poor broadband infrastructure? Can he confirm that this one nation Conservative Government are making record investment in levelling up digital infrastructure?
Matt Warman
I can. The value of superfast and gigabit broadband to businesses is enormous, and it will allow the businesses of the future to power this country’s economy. It is the fact that those benefits can be shared so widely that makes the £5 billion Government investment so valuable.
David Duguid
The percentage of residents without access to superfast broadband in Banff and Buchan has decreased from 18% to 16% in the last two years, but that is still far too many and nowhere near fast enough in both senses. In 2020, decent broadband is a necessity for everyone in my constituency, not a luxury. Can the Minister assure me and my constituents that the Government will do all they can, including keeping up pressure on the Scottish Government, to accelerate the roll-out of superfast broadband to my constituents?
Matt Warman
Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the progress that has been made in his constituency, but there is more to do. I recently spoke with my Scottish counterpart, Paul Wheelhouse, and the sense that we can work together to deliver this vital programme means that perhaps in Scotland we can have more broadband and less party politics.
Miss Dines
Does my hon. Friend agree that remote communities in the Derbyshire Dales, such as Chelmorton, Stanton in Peak, Birchover, Taddington and Cressbrook, like other parts of the country, need to be levelled up and have a chance of getting decent broadband, because they have been forgotten?
Matt Warman
It is precisely because of the needs of remote areas such as those in her constituency that we are investing £5 billion in gigabit-capable broadband. I know that, with her speaking up on behalf of her constituents, they will by no means be left behind.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
If only complacency built networks, we would have the fastest broadband in the world, but it does not, and neither does it keep our network secure. In June, the National Cyber Security Centre said that we had to act to mitigate the risk of high-risk vendors such as Huawei in our 5G and full-fibre networks. Since then, we have had more disturbing reports from our Five Eyes allies Canada and the US, while former Cabinet Ministers fall over themselves to criticise the Government, but we have had no legislation and not even a plan for legislation. Where is the plan to keep our networks safe?
Matt Warman
As the hon. Lady knows, the NCSC has published comprehensive guidance, which the networks are paying close attention to. The networks work closely with our agencies. We will bring forward legislation on this as quickly as we can, because national security will always be at the top of our priority list. That is why we have taken the decision we have taken.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Scotland is approximately two thirds the size of England, but we have more challenging topography and islands to serve, yet Scotland will get a fifth of England’s Building Digital UK fund, and for the R100 programme, the UK Government are only committing £20 million towards the £600 million programme. Does the Minister agree with the recommendation of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that future allocations to Scotland should be based on need, taking into account all those factors?
Matt Warman
As I said a minute ago, I recently had a productive conversation with my Scottish counterpart on how the Scottish and UK Governments can work together to get the broadband into Scotland that it so clearly needs.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a nice view from up here, Mr Speaker.
The Minister’s Duracell Bunny-like enthusiasm is all very well, and I hope it stands him in good stead during the clear-out today, but it is not enough. Does the Government’s ambition not fall pathetically short of what is really required?
Matt Warman
The £5 billion will go an awfully long way and build on the huge progress being made already, but the hon. Gentleman is right: this is not simply about money. That is why we are making legislative changes as well. The Prime Minister has been very clear on his ambition. The recent roundtable at No. 10 with all the broadband providers shows that this is far more than words; it is a real commitment in legislative and financial terms, and it will get Britain the broadband it deserves.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister promised full fibre broadband roll-out by 2025, but pretty quickly that was watered down to “as soon as possible”. What proportion of houses will have full fibre broadband by 2025?
Matt Warman
The hon. Member is right: we have said we will make gigabit-capable networks available as soon as possible. The Prime Minister has talked very clearly about that 2025 target and we will legislate to make sure that all new builds have gigabit-capable broadband, and of course we will focus our greatest attention on the hardest-to-reach areas where broadband is currently the worst in the country.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Helen Whately)
We know that about 1% of the population are problem gamblers, and I want to make sure this group is helped, not harmed. That is why I have asked the Gambling Commission to use its powers to make sure gamblers are not taken advantage of—for instance, through exploitative VIP schemes—and why we have recently banned gambling with credit cards and will be reviewing the Gambling Act 2005 to make sure it is fit for the modern age.
Andrew Jones
Too many people have had their lives turned upside down by gambling addiction, so I commend the Minister for her decision to ban people from gambling using credit cards—essentially gambling with money they do not have—but what more will the Government do to tackle the scourge of problem gambling? We have probably all seen constituents in surgeries who have had their lives ruined by this terrible problem.
Helen Whately
I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the ban on gambling with credit cards, which was an important decision, but our work to tackle problem gambling continues. The intention of the Gambling Act review is to make sure we have the right legislation to protect people from harm, but in the meantime, for those struggling with problem gambling, the Department of Health and Social Care is opening 14 new specialist NHS clinics, and we are working on a cross-Government addiction strategy, which will include gambling.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party group for gambling related harm, I am delighted that the Government have adopted so many of our recommendations over the last 18 months. Our latest one is that we would very much like to see no gambling advertising in sports activities. Will the Minister agree that this is a way forward?
Helen Whately
I know the hon. Lady is a determined campaigner on this issue. I am also well aware of concerns about gambling in sports. I have spoken about this with the Sports Minister, who is here beside me. There are already controls on advertising in sport—the whistle-to-whistle ban is a step forward—and as I said, the Gambling Act review is coming up. We are working on the scope of that at the moment.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
The 2018 gaming machines review, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the NHS lead on mental health, the Children’s Commissioner and many Members of the House have expressed concerns about loot boxes, skins and e-gaming. What discussions has the Minister had with the Gambling Commission about it exercising its powers to safeguard young gamers from gambling?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend did a huge amount of work in this area when she was Minister with this responsibility. I have spoken to the Gambling Commission about loot boxes and the risks of online gambling, and we are working at the moment on the scope of the gambling review.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The gambling arena currently resembles the wild west. This is resulting in increased harm and even suicides. Rather than tinkering around the edges of the Gambling Act, will the UK Government rip it up and write a new one fit for the 21st century and in doing so engage with those people with lived experience?
Helen Whately
Absolutely. We intend to engage with people with lived experience and a wide range of stakeholders as we review the Gambling Act. We must get a balance here: making sure we get on and update that legislation, hand in hand with doing it thoroughly and making the changes so that our gambling legislation is fit for the modern age.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Minister for Sport, Media and Creative Industries (Nigel Adams)
The Government are committed to making sure that everyone is able to participate in sport and physical activity, regardless of their background or ability. Sport England is investing over £1 billion of lottery and Exchequer funding in grassroots sports over the period 2017 to 2021 to support a physically active nation.
Sarah Atherton
As we all know, rugby is in the blood of the Welsh, but in Wrexham football is prevalent. Would the Minister like to accompany me to Wrexham rugby club to see the work it and Welsh Rugby Union are doing to introduce grassroots rugby to the children of Wrexham?
Nigel Adams
Of course, I would love to go to Wrexham. I would love to go to Wrexham regardless of whether I have still got the job. I can tell my hon. Friend that it will not be my first visit. If anybody remembers, Goole Town—the mighty Goole Town—played Wrexham in the FA cup third round in 1976, and I was there. If anybody can tell me the score, there will be a prize for them.
I would like to thank my hon. Friend for her interest in this area. Nowhere has a richer rugby heritage than Wales. I would like to offer my commiserations on Wales’s disappointing Six Nations result on Saturday—a valiant clash—but we look forward to 7 March. She will know that sport is a devolved matter, but I look forward—fingers crossed—to coming to Wrexham very shortly.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
At the moment, horse racing is the only sport where there is a levy from gambling. Are the Government considering taking a levy from gambling in other sports to pay for grassroots sports participation, given that there has been a 20% drop since 2010 in grassroots cricket and tennis?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Member will be aware that there is huge investment going into grassroots sport, no more so than the £550 million that we announced for grassroots football. Of course, currently the lottery does play a big part in grassroots sport, and Exchequer funding goes in. She asks about the levy. We have no plans currently to introduce a levy on other sports, but like any Government, we keep an open mind.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Just a few years ago, Buckingham Ladies hockey team were using marmite jars on a table top to plan their tactics, and they had only five players and no goalkeeper, but I am delighted to say that, on 2 February, they lifted the cup, winning the Jaffa Super 6s final. Will my hon. Friend join me in warmly congratulating Buckingham Ladies, and let me know what plans the Government have to support more teams like them to thrive?
Nigel Adams
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking his seat; it is great that Buckingham has a Conservative MP once again. I also congratulate Buckingham Ladies: what a fantastic effort to win the Jaffa Super 6s. I really encourage my hon. Friend to get the club to engage with local representatives from Sport England. These are exactly the sorts of clubs we need to nurture and see grow.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
The Government are committed to making the UK the safest place in the world to go online. Yesterday, we published our initial response to the consultation on the world-leading proposals in our online harms White Paper. This document set out in additional detail how we will introduce a duty of care on companies to keep their users safe online while protecting freedom of expression.
Charlotte Nichols
It has been many months since the consultation on the Government’s online harms White Paper closed, and we have only just received the initial response. Based on the latest police recorded crime data, it is estimated that an average of one online abuse offence against a child was recorded every 16 minutes in England and Wales, which equates to up to 90 online sexual offences against children every day. Can the Minister tell us today when we can expect to see legislation brought forward?
Matt Warman
This Government are absolutely committed to moving as quickly as we possibly can on this legislation. That is why we have said we will be publishing a full response in the spring, and why we will be legislating this Session. Many of the offences that she talks about are already covered by other legislation, but the online harms Bill will bring a coherent and world-leading approach to some of the most important issues of our age.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
Recent figures from Ofcom show that half of all parents are worried about the online safety of their children, and sadly, as we have heard, they are right to be worried. The Government’s online harms consultation closed more than 200 days ago. If NSPCC estimates are right, there have been more than 20,000 unspeakable child offences and abuses in the time that it has taken for the Government to string together an initial response. We are told that legislation is on its way, but how many more days will anxious parents have to wait? Who will take responsibility for children who are harmed while this Government dither?
Matt Warman
The NSPCC has come out strongly and welcomed what we announced yesterday, which is a hugely important step. The hon. Lady is right to say that there is never an excuse for delay in this sort of area, but as the NSPCC said to me yesterday, bad regulation is worse than no regulation. We will take our time to get this right, but we will not delay for a second longer. That is why we will legislate in this Session.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
The Government announced support in principle for the mobile network operators shared rural network programme, which will see those operators collectively increase 4G mobile coverage throughout the UK to 95% by 2025. Although the SRN is not yet a done deal, the Prime Minister has made improvements to rural mobile coverage a key part of his “first 100 days” pledge.
Kevin Hollinrake
In answer to the Sports Minister’s question, I think that Wrexham won 1-0, and he was one of—off the top of my head—the 4,200 people in the crowd.
Kevin Hollinrake
I’m being intervened on by the Sports Minister!
The £1 billion shared rural network, 50% of which is paid for by the taxpayer, has the support of just about every rural parliamentarian in this place, but apparently it is at risk because BT is increasing its charges to other operators. What can the Minister do to bring BT back to the table and ensure that the deal goes through?
Matt Warman
I am sorry there is a dispute about the important matter of the score at Wrexham. To return to my hon. Friend’s substantive point, I pay tribute to his work on behalf of so many rural MPs on this important issue, and I will continue to work with the sector to ensure that the shared rural network is delivered. It would be inappropriate to comment on the detail of commercial negotiations, but if mobile network operators are unable to reach an agreement for any reason—I very much hope they will be able to—we will continue to explore all possible options, including rural roaming.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What discussions have been held with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that the roll-out of the rural network programme—that began in this place, and is now continued by the Assembly, which is operating again—is on a par with the rest of the United Kingdom?
Matt Warman
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that when we talk about “levelling up”, it is vital that we bring all parts of the United Kingdom with us. I have already been to Northern Ireland to talk about this and other issues, not least the roll-out of the fibre network in Dundrum, which was impressive. We will continue those conversations to ensure that every aspect of the United Kingdom gets the broadband and mobile coverage it deserves.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
The Minister for Sport, Media and Creative Industries (Nigel Adams)
The Government are committed to investing in young people’s futures, and alongside delivering the national citizen service, we announced a new £500 million youth investment fund from April this year, which will provide capital and revenue investment in youth services for the next five years. The £7 million youth accelerator fund, which was launched last month by the Secretary of State, will deliver extra sessions and youth clubs, alongside a range of positive activities in sport and culture for young people.
Darren Henry
Local clubs are a great way to help young people participate in sport. In my Broxtowe constituency, Sarah Green, a parent volunteer, has worked tirelessly to renovate the Trent Vale community sports association clubhouse. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to all community volunteers who support grassroots sport?
Nigel Adams
It gives me great pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituents. There are 6.7 million volunteers in sport throughout the UK, which is an incredible number. We must recognise the people who give of their own time by volunteering specifically to help young people. Sport England is investing £15 million a year through its community asset fund between 2017 and 2021 to support communities just like my hon. Friend’s.
Stuart Anderson
The Way Youth Zone provides young people in Wolverhampton with a variety of facilities and fantastic activities in the heart of the city. However, many young people in Wolverhampton are unable to access the Way Youth Zone, as they live too far away. What plans does my hon. Friend have to provide investment opportunities for replicating that successful youth inclusion model in other areas of Wolverhampton, such as Whitmore Reans?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right. Young people in Wolverhampton and elsewhere should have access to high-quality youth services such as the Way Youth Zone regardless of where they live—whether that is in a city, a village or a town, or on the coast. The youth investment fund to which I referred will enable the development and expansion of capital resources, including buildings and mobile facilities for harder-to-reach areas, alongside investment for positive activities across the country.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
With youth services having been slashed by 73% since 2010 under savage local government cuts, and given that a peer gets more for turning up for one day than an under-25 year old has to live on for a month under universal credit, when they are already suffering from job and housing insecurity, when will Ministers admit that, under this Government, youth have never had it so bad?
Nigel Adams
It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member’s questions, which are usually positive and upbeat, as we have seen this morning. I would just remind her—politely and gently—of what I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry). We have announced a £500 million youth investment fund, which starts this year. We also have the £7 million accelerator fund. I am not going use her words about having it so bad; I think she should recognise and reflect on the fact that the sums being invested in youth services are huge.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Helen Whately)
Many of the stars of stage and screen who recently won awards at the BAFTAs and the Oscars started out on stage at a local theatre, but even if a role in a local panto does not lead to a BAFTA, we know that local theatres bring people together in a way that no west end theatre can rival. The Government recognise the importance of local theatres and we are actively supporting them. Arts Council England invested £650 million in theatres over the past five years. Theatres all around the country benefit from theatre tax relief. I recently attended the launch of this year’s Theatres at Risk list, a successful scheme that has saved 80 theatres since it started.
Elliot Colburn
Carshalton and Wallington was left as nearly the only part of London that did not have a local theatre, so will the Minister join me in thanking and congratulating the team at CryerArts, a local community group which has stepped up and saved the Cryer in Carshalton to promote local artists?
Helen Whately
I am very glad to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the team at CryerArts. I understand that the theatre reopened in November and I hope it continues to be a much-loved local venue.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
In order to ensure the future of local theatres, what conversations is the Minister having with counterparts in the Department for Education to ensure that all children are given access to high-quality performing arts education from a young age?
Helen Whately
I am in conversation with the Department for Education about arts in school. The hon. Lady may be aware that an arts premium is coming in for secondary schools, which will mean more investment in arts in our schools.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
The Minister for Sport, Media and Creative Industries (Nigel Adams)
The Government have committed to maintain the licence fee funding model for the duration of this 11-year charter period. We want to help vulnerable people who may struggle to pay for their TV licence, which is why we have announced the simple payment plan, which will come into effect on 1 April. On penalties for evasion, we believe it is right to look again at whether the criminal sanction remains appropriate, given ongoing concerns about whether it is unfair and disproportionate.
Eddie Hughes
I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that the BBC should stop focusing on criminalising customers who cannot pay for the licence and focus instead on its agreement to provide free TV licences for over-75s?
Nigel Adams
I agree with my hon. Friend. As we made clear in our manifesto, we recognise the value of free TV licences for over-75s. They should be funded by the BBC, and we remain disappointed with the BBC’s decision to restrict the over-75 licence fee concession only to those in receipt of pension credit.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
As the Minister just made clear, he is aware that in only a few weeks’ time, some of our poorest and most vulnerable pensioners will be hit with TV licence fee charges. The Government deliberately foisted what should be a social provision on to the BBC which, foolishly under Lord Hall, accepted this responsibility. Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State that the Government have no business doing that, and will he commit today to stepping in to cover the cost for the most vulnerable in society?
Nigel Adams
Forgive me for repeating the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), and the answer that I gave to the urgent question last week, but we are consulting on whether the decriminalisation of TV licence fee evasion should go ahead—that is absolutely the case. If the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) is saying to me that, in 2020, the future of a broadcaster’s financing is based on potentially sending someone to prison, we perhaps need to look at other models of funding.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
The Minister for Sport, Media and Creative Industries (Nigel Adams)
I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating the British film “1917” on picking up three awards at the Oscars, along with the seven BAFTAs that it picked up earlier this month. “1917” is one of thousands of film productions that has benefited from the Government’s creative industry tax reliefs, which the producer of “1917” said were “crucial” to supporting our world-leading production industry.
As we heard, yesterday the Government published their initial response to the online harms White Paper, confirming their commitment to free speech and that they want the UK to be the safest place for users to be online.
Dr Wallis
Bridgend’s local council is proposing to increase the fees that it charges local sports clubs by up to 500%. Many of these clubs tell me that they will need to close if that is implemented. Does my hon. Friend that every step should be taken, at all levels of government, to improve grassroots sport?
Nigel Adams
That is absolutely right. I agree that the Government should seek to support sport and physical activity at every level so that everyone, regardless of their age or ability, has the option to get more active. That is why, through Sport England, we are investing more than £1 billion between 2017 and 2021 to get more people active and to reach out to people who traditionally have not necessarily thought that sport and physical activity is for them.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
DCMS has not published impact data on the National Citizen Service since 2016. With former partner organisations going out of business and the transition to new contracts reported as being, at best, turbulent, what are the Government doing to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent appropriately and for the benefit of all young people across the UK?
Nigel Adams
I remind the hon. Lady that the National Citizen Service has benefited almost 600,000 young people in disadvantaged areas across the country. It teaches life skills, improves confidence—I have seen that in my constituency—and boosts employability. It is still the fastest-growing youth movement that we have had in this country for a century.
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Nigel Adams
I fully intend to deliver on our commitment to work with fans to move towards standing at football. In one of my first meetings following the election, I met the Premier League, the English Football League, the Football Association, the Sports Grounds Safety Authority and the Football Supporters’ Association to discuss this pledge with them. Last week, I was pleased to receive the interim findings of the Sports Grounds Safety Authority’s research, and I have asked it to continue that research with a view to delivering safe standing at football for football supporters.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Nigel Adams
The funding model that was agreed in 2015 is guaranteed, and the licence fee model is guaranteed until 2027. S4C is a very important public service broadcaster. Conversations will continue from this period onwards, and the funding element of S4C will feature strongly in them.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
I absolutely can confirm that. I know how important any kind of mobile coverage still is in some parts of the country. My hon. Friend will have heard the earlier answer about the shared rural network. It is still being negotiated, and the exact sites that will benefit first will be negotiated by the mobile networks themselves, but I would welcome the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend and talk about where we can benefit her constituents most.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Since the Glazers took over Manchester United in 2005, more than £1 billion has been taken out of the club, which they are using as a personal cash cow. Does the Minister agree that that model of ownership is not what we want for our football clubs?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Football clubs such as Manchester United are at the heart of local communities. They have unique social value, and many of them have a great history. We have committed ourselves to a fan-led review of football governance, which will include consideration of the owners and directors test, but, as the hon. Gentleman says, it is very important for us to ensure that our game is protected for the fans.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Matt Warman
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government will legislate at the earliest opportunity to ensure that we do everything in line with the advice of our agencies, which is that with the “ban and cap” approach, we can ensure that national security is our top priority while also building the 5G network that we deserve safely.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I have lost count of the number of times I have raised the faltering roll-out of broadband in my vast and remote constituency. The UK Government give money to the Scottish Government to ensure that that roll-out happens. May I suggest that the UK Government carry out some kind of audit to see where the money has gone—or, in my case, not gone?
Matt Warman
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that no one is happy with the speed of the roll-out in Scotland, particularly in constituencies such as his. That is why I look forward to working with my Scottish counterpart to improve the position. I expect the Scottish audit authorities to take careful note of what he has just said.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right to mention the important role played by local newspapers—not least the Selby Times. It is clear to the Government that they play an invaluable role in the fabric of our society, ensuring that there is a healthy democracy both nationally and locally. On 27 January, we published our formal response to the independent Cairncross review, which outlines the steps that regulators, Government and industry will take to support the future of the news publishing industry nationally and locally.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
In the first weekend of this year, nearly 200,000 people participated in parkrun events. As the chair of the new all-party parliamentary group on parkrun, may I ask the Minister to meet me to discuss how the Government can support this new social phenomenon and improve public health?
Nigel Adams
I will definitely meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this issue. Park runs have taken off phenomenally well across the country. As yet, my schedule has been so busy that I have not managed to fit one in, but I am sure that the opportunity will arise. Park runs are great things—they are great for community meeting—so let us potentially do one together.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Matt Warman
I look forward to having a meeting with my hon. Friend on this subject, but I reiterate that it is not only rural areas that will benefit from the shared rural network; urban and suburban areas will benefit as well.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
The Crown Prosecution Service is determined to bring those responsible for female genital mutilation to justice. These are complex cases, usually involving very young and vulnerable victims. When expert medical evidence confirms that an offence has been committed, CPS prosecutors work closely with the police from the outset to build robust cases. This Government regard FGM as a serious criminal offence of child abuse, and we are committed to tackling this appalling crime.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. In Nottingham, we are really proud to be the first community in the country to declare ourselves a zero-tolerance area for FGM, but we cannot do this alone. We need other parts of the system to work, too, so can the Minister assure me and the campaigners in my community that the Crown Prosecution Service is adequately resourced to do all the good things that he has just described and that it is focused on doing them as a priority?
The Solicitor General
I commend the hon. Gentleman and the city of Nottingham for what they are doing in this area. I have been told that piloting and trialling are taking place in some Nottingham schools. The CPS is working very hard to fight the scourge of female genital mutilation. We have lead FGM prosecutors in each CPS area, and there is a stakeholder group for so-called honour-based abuse and forced marriage, as well as FGM. That met twice in 2019, and it is already helping to improve investigation and prosecution performance.
Carolyn Harris
The lack of services to support the victims of female genital mutilation is often seen as a reason why so many cases are left unreported. What effect does the Attorney General—whoever that might be—think the cuts to the Crown Prosecution Service have had on the reporting of FGM cases?
The Solicitor General
I am pleased to say that £85 million has just been allocated by this Government to the Crown Prosecution Service. That enormous sum has been very well received. The reality is that FGM is a complex criminal offence. It is difficult to prosecute, but when these matters are made the subject of a complaint, every effort is made to gold-standard the process to make proceeding as easy as possible. I say again that the joint police-CPS taskforce—the stakeholder group—was established in order to make progress across this range of areas, including pre-prosecution.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
My hon. Friend has spoken a lot about FGM in the UK, but does he agree that a lot of the problems come when children go abroad? At the moment, the Gambian Government are rewriting their constitution and there is a question mark as to whether they will maintain the clause banning all forms of FGM. Will he reach out to his opposite number in Gambia, through the Foreign Office, and support them in drafting a constitution that is appropriate in this area? Will he also support the work that people such as Nimco Ali are doing to ensure that our voice and the voices of women around the world are heard?
The Solicitor General
Nimco Ali is doing some great work in this area. We will liaise with the Foreign Office, where appropriate, to offer our views. I can also say that the point my hon. Friend makes has a tendency to raise jurisdictional issues, which is one of the points of complexity that we have in prosecuting these cases. However, every effort is—rightly so—being made to tackle this appalling crime.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
Domestic abuse offences are horrific crimes that can have long-lasting traumatic effects on victims. It is of the utmost importance that victims are provided with robust protection to protect them from repeat offending. The Crown Prosecution Service is committed to prosecuting these crimes and ensuring victims are supported. That is why the CPS led the implementation of a national domestic abuse best practice framework for magistrates court cases in 2019. The framework provides a holistic approach, going further than the criminal justice system and ensuring consistent good practice by all agencies.
The Solicitor General
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important issue. In 2007-08, offences involving violence against women and girls accounted for 7.1% of CPS case load. The figure is now 17%, but I very much accept that more work needs to be done. There has been a rise of over 8% in prosecutions for crimes of violence against women and girls, and the conviction rate has risen—it is now 78.2%. However, I agree that more needs to be done, and it will be.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
In the year to March 2019, which is the last year for which we have a full set of statistics, the number of domestic abuse incidents and crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales increased by over 118,000 on the previous year. However, over the same period, police referrals to the CPS fell by 11%. What are the Government going to do about that?
The Solicitor General
The Government are working very hard in this area. In fact, I have personally dealt with a case in the Court of Appeal, trying to get the sentence raised on a domestic violence rape. However, I understand that the reduction in the number of suspects charged, together with the falling charge rate, is a cause for concern. We await the findings of what the hon. Gentleman knows is the cross-Government review of the criminal justice system’s response to this matter, but the report by Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate identifies a number of relevant issues, and I urge him to have a look at it.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The statistics show that 2.1 million people experienced domestic violence over this period—1.4 million women and 700,000 men. There is also this shocking disparity between the number of incidents and the number of subjects charged. The Solicitor General talks about there being a cause for concern and about reviews, but surely, given the scale of the problem, we need action now.
The Solicitor General
Action is being taken now. CPS policy on charging these matters, including on the charging of rape, has not changed. The code test has not changed; it still applies to all cases, no matter how minor, no matter how serious. Prosecutors do not apply a bookmaker’s test on this. They do not try to second-guess the jury. Where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, they do, and they will. The CPS will not hesitate to do that.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
My constituent Chloe was held captive by her former partner for several months, but she found the time waiting for her abuser’s trial almost as traumatic. Does the Solicitor General agree that if we are to expect the survivors of domestic abuse and violence to have the bravery to come forward, they need to be confident that they will get the support they need at this horrific time?
The Solicitor General
Yes, it is very important that they have the maximum support. Delay is always undesirable. I might add that, in an inspection into domestic abuse cases that was published only a few weeks ago, inspectors noted that CPS prosecutors had applied the code correctly in 100% of cases they examined.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The recent criminal justice joint inspection report noted that
“the domestic abuse caseload for both the CPS and the police has increased by 88% against the backdrop of a 25% reduction in police and CPS funding.”
This is leaving staff stretched and facing difficult decisions. Will the Solicitor General pursue the Chancellor for the resources necessary so that decisions are made according to public interest, rather than budgetary pressures?
The Solicitor General
These decisions are always made according to public interest and not to budgetary pressures. As I have mentioned before, the Treasury has already supplied £85 million more to the CPS, which is a very welcome sum and will be well spent.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
The county lines model of drug distribution blights communities and fuels serious violence. The CPS provides early advice to law enforcement to build strong cases against county lines and to ensure the robust prosecution of those using county lines to sell drugs. We have recent cases that highlight that model.
Andrew Griffith
We are all victims when it comes to county lines drug gangs, and no more so than my constituents in Hassocks, which lies on the main London to Brighton railway line. On their behalf, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider making involvement in county lines activity an aggravated offence?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. British Transport police is doing good work in this area, and the Home Office is providing £25 million of targeted investment over this year and next year to tackle this particular issue, £5 million of which is already in operational use. Overall, expanding the national county lines co-ordination centre will be very positive in getting results, including work with British Transport police to prevent disruption on the rail network. There is also investment in new technology, including automatic number plate recognition. We are working across the board with law enforcement agencies and partners to deal with these gangs.
John Lamont
As well as addressing county lines networks, what discussions is my right hon. and learned Friend having with the Scottish Government to deal with county lines across the border between Scotland and England?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. I am pleased to say there is good co-operation across jurisdictions—between the English and Scottish authorities—and between the different counties in England that co-ordinate on these matters. The NCLCC is working in this area, and I understand it is working very effectively.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
The work of these gangs stretches right across the UK, with more than 20 known to be operating county lines in Scotland. Can the Solicitor General assure me that prosecutors in the different criminal jurisdictions are working closely together to ensure that those behind “country lines” are brought to justice as speedily and effectively as possible?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Lady raises a good point. We know that county lines do not respect internal borders, and Police Scotland is engaged in the national law enforcement response to this issue. I am pleased to say Police Scotland is working as part of the NCLCC, which was established with £3.6 million of Home Office funding in 2018.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
I chair the public legal education committee, and I regularly engage with stakeholders and other Government Departments on public legal education to explore how we can increase public understanding of the law. Valuable work is ongoing in this area. During Justice Week, for example, the “big legal lesson” will be delivered in schools around the country on 24 February 2020. I will also attend an MP drop-in session in Portcullis House on 26 February—you will be very welcome, Mr Speaker—to raise awareness of the justice system. I urge all colleagues to pop by.
Jessica Morden
We are seeing more and more litigants-in-person due to the Government’s legal aid cuts, and many people never pursue their rights to see their children or to make financial claims because they do not know how. What will Ministers do to help people access justice, which is their right?
The Solicitor General
It is right that public legal education provides people with vital awareness, which is what it does. People need knowledge and understanding of their rights and responsibilities, but it is wrong to say it is a quid pro quo with legal aid. It acts as an adjunct to legal aid, and individuals face difficult challenges and sometimes require additional help. The pro bono work we see in the public legal education carried out by the legal and the third sectors helps to make a real difference. I have visited a number of locations, including the pro bono unit at the University of Leicester just last week, and they are helping people. This is a valuable exercise.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Understanding of the law is vital for the rule of law, but as the president of the Law Society reminded us this week, in the light of the deportation rulings, so, too, is judicial review. So why does No. 10 keep attacking judges, instead of law-breaking Ministers? Is judicial review not all the more important because although Parliament might not be “dead”, as the former Attorney General described it, it is utterly supine on providing checks on ministerial powers?
The Solicitor General
I do not think Parliament is supine in any context. The reality of the matter is that public legal education provides valuable insight and awareness to young people, in particular, about rights and responsibilities. I do not recognise the characteristic the hon. Gentleman puts on the issue.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
The CPS takes offences against emergency service personnel extremely seriously. Between November 2018 and November 2019, the first year of the offence coming into effect, almost 20,000 offences were charged under the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, three quarters of which were assaults by beating; there were 19,771 offences against emergency workers, including 5,362 common assaults. In January, the CPS published a joint agreement with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, NHS England, the National Fire Chiefs Council and Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. This shared understanding, and it will ensure that cases continue to be prosecuted and investigated effectively.
Dr Wallis
Reports of serious and violent crimes endured by emergency services staff have caused some of my constituents worry and anguish about loved ones who work in this area. What assurances can my right hon. and learned Friend give my constituents that the Government are taking steps to reduce serious and violent crime?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is right to raise this point. I warn anyone who engages in any type of offence against an emergency service worker that the law will deal with them harshly; the estimated conviction rate, based on the first cases to go through the courts, was 90%. It is right that we see uplifts in sentence for those who assault emergency service workers, who serve the public diligently and courageously.
Eddie Hughes
I thank the Minister for that answer. I think everybody in this House will endorse the idea that we should protect the protectors, so will he assure us that we will seek the maximum sentence when prosecuting these crimes?
The Solicitor General
Sentencing is a matter for the courts, but I agree with my hon. Friend in practice. A review sample revealed that nine in 10 assaults were against police officers. Almost all of those took place when the attacker was intoxicated by drink or drugs, and when they were being arrested or an unrelated offence was involved. Spitting was common. The violence perpetrated was wide-ranging, and included kicking, punching, headbutting, slapping and biting. The courts should and will come down on these offenders.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
The United Kingdom has a long tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically, fulfilling its international human rights obligations and upholding the rule of law. Leaving the European Union has not and will not change that.
Geraint Davies
The Solicitor General knows that our institutions of liberal democracy—the BBC, the judiciary and the civil service—are under attack. He is planning to water down the Human Rights Act. Will he give a solemn undertaking that we will not be withdrawing from the European convention on human rights, which was established 62 years ago, with the help of Winston Churchill, and nor will we withdraw from the Council of Europe?
The Solicitor General
The UK is committed to human rights. The fact is that our EU exit does not change that; the UK will continue to champion human rights, at home and abroad—it is part of who we are as a people. We practised human rights before the 1998 Act and we will continue to do so. We are committed to upholding the rule of law. The UK is a beacon in this area around the world, and leaving the EU does not change that.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
The proper disclosure of unused material is vital if there is to be a fair trial, which is in the interests of the complainant, the accused and the whole community. There has been unprecedented joint commitment and focus from the police and the CPS on finding solutions to the problem of getting disclosure right. The £85 million investment in the CPS, to which I have alluded, will enable the CPS to respond effectively to the expected increase in case load resulting from the recruitment of 20,000 new police officers.
Justin Madders
It is pretty clear that currently justice is not being done. Does the Solicitor General accept that that fund is simply not going to be enough to get the justice that this country deserves?
The Solicitor General
No, I do not accept that. In fact, the £85 million that was given to the CPS recently was the largest sum, pro rata, given to any Government Department. It is right that it is a priority for the Government to deal with criminal justice robustly, which is what the Government are going to do.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
The proper disclosure of unused material is vital if there is to be a fair trial, and we will continue to focus on these issues, including on the issue of better meeting the disclosure obligations. We will work with investigators to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry.
Robert Largan
The CPS does not currently publish figures on hate crime prosecution rates disaggregated by racial and religious bias. Will the Solicitor General join me in urging the CPS to make that data available so that we can judge its performance on antisemitism and properly tackle this most hateful form of crime?
The Solicitor General
The issue of antisemitism, which my hon. Friend rightly raises, is one of very considerable concern. Just last week, I visited the Community Security Trust in north London; the work that the trust does with the Jewish community to combat antisemitism is significant and very much appreciated. My hon. Friend is right that it is important that proper records are kept by the CPS in respect of these matters, and we are constantly discussing with the CPS how better it can review its statistics and keep these things properly in the mind of the general public.
Online Harms Legislation
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the Government’s plans for online harms legislation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
I thank my hon. Friend for their question on this important issue.
The Government are taking significant action to tackle the issue of online harm and make this country the safest place in the world to go online. There is widespread consensus that online platforms must do more to make sure that their services are safe for all users, particularly children, while also promoting freedom of expression online. Strikingly, far fewer parents now believe that the benefits of their child being online outweigh the risks, with the proportion falling from 65% of parents in 2015 to 55% last year. That is a worrying trend that we must address. We can keep the benefits of the digital economy only if we can improve trust and confidence in technology and tackle what erodes it.
The “Online Harms” White Paper proposed a statutory duty of care, enforced by an independent regulator. Since its publication, we have consulted on our proposals and announced our intention to legislate in the Queen’s Speech. The evidence given during the consultation will help us to get the balance right between an open and vibrant internet and one where users are protected from harm.
Yesterday, as set out in a written ministerial statement, the Government published our initial consultation response. The response set out our proposed direction of travel following the consultation, and we will publish a full response in the spring, before bringing forward legislation in this Session. I wish to bring to the attention of the House four specific points raised during the consultation.
First, we must ensure that in aiming to make the internet safer we do not inadvertently stifle legitimate debate. We will place safeguards in legislation, giving companies and the regulator the responsibility to protect users’ rights, including freedom of expression, online. We will introduce greater transparency about content removals so that users can appeal if their content is taken down.
Secondly, we know that greater protections are needed to keep young people safe online. The new regulatory framework will require companies to take steps to prevent children from accessing age-inappropriate content and protect them from other harms.
Thirdly, some consultation responses raised concerns that the regulation would place undue burdens on sites where opportunities for harm to occur are limited. Our legislation will be proportionate and risk-based, affecting only those companies in respect of which there is a risk of harm. The duty of care will apply only to businesses facilitating the sharing of user-generated content, for example, through comments or video sharing, and only around 5% of UK businesses provide these functions.
Finally, the regulator will ensure that in-scope companies have appropriate systems and processes in place to protect users from harm, especially children and the most vulnerable. We are minded to appoint Ofcom to regulate online harms, building on its experience and expertise to make further progress on this important issue. We also yesterday appointed Ofcom to regulate video-sharing platforms under the audiovisual media services directive, which aims to reduce harmful content on these sites. That will provide quicker protection for some harms and activities and will act as a stepping stone to the full online harms regulatory framework.
We will publish our full consultation response in the spring, setting out further details of our plans ahead of legislation and, alongside this, the Home Office will publish voluntary interim codes of practice to set out what companies should do to prevent terrorist use of the internet, or child sex exploitation and abuse on their platforms.
We are confident that this publication and the other plans that we are driving forward will help to make Britain the safest place to be online and the best digital economy in the world. No other country in the world is working faster to foster tackling this vital issue.
Julian Knight
I thank the Minister for his initial response. A regulator is nothing without the ability genuinely to disrupt the business practices of a firm that it is regulating. What assurances can he give the House that the proposed Ofcom plus regulator can genuinely bring social media companies to account with simply a bit of public shaming and fines? Does he agree that there needs to be a tech levy set at 2% of UK revenues in order properly to fund this super-regulator?
Will the Minister confirm that there will be a legal duty on companies to inform users of their personal privacy rights? Would not the new regulatory framework benefit from pre-legislative scrutiny by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, as well as from allowing the Committee a veto over the appointment or dismissal of the head of the regulator, in exactly the same way that the Treasury Committee has over the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility? Will the Minister assure the House that legislation will be forthcoming this calendar year, as we have been waiting a very long time for this?
Matt Warman
The Chair of the Select Committee is absolutely right that regulation without teeth is not a valuable form of regulation. We will be talking to Ofcom about what it believes the most effective form of regulation will be, and we will obviously be feeding in our own thoughts as well. The decision that we made yesterday allows us to start having those formal conversations, and Ofcom to start talking to the industry as well. In the same vein, I agree with my hon. Friend that a levy has been much discussed. He mentions one figure. We will obviously have to discuss with Ofcom what it considers to be the level of resources that it needs, and I do not use that as a way of trying to weasel out of what he suggests by any means. It is a very interesting suggestion.
There will be, of course, a legal duty on companies to be more transparent with their customers. We are talking about transparency already in some working groups that I have been chairing. My hon. Friend mentions pre-legislative scrutiny. It is, of course, a tradition, although not a necessity, that full pre-legislative scrutiny in one Session would require the Bill to be introduced in the following Session, and this Government are not content to introduce that kind of delay. However, he did in fact mention pre-legislative scrutiny by his Committee, rather than in the formal way, and it is an interesting suggestion. I look forward to working closely with him on what the best form of scrutiny looks like.
Similarly, another interesting suggestion is what role my hon. Friend’s Committee might play when it comes to the regulator of this. We have compared regulation of financial services when we have been thinking about this, and he is right to make a comparison. It is another interesting suggestion. I look forward to working with him and his Committee—I hope. [Interruption.] I will put my phone on speaker on the Dispatch Box. I look forward to working with him, to be serious, because this is an area where I hope we can form genuine cross-party consensus on what is the right way forward without introducing a moment’s delay.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I will allow up to 45 minutes on this urgent question, but first we will hear from Chi Onwurah.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Molly Russell was only 14 when she killed herself after viewing posts on Instagram. David Turnball was 75 when he lost his pension through an unregulated financial product that was prominently advertised by Google. Last year TikTok live-streamed a teenager’s suicide. Misinformation on the coronavirus is spreading on social media. An online abuse offence against a child is recorded every 16 minutes. When we talk about online harms, these are real people, real stories, real pain and real hurt.
Before becoming an MP, I was an engineer. I helped build out the internet. I am proud of my work, which enabled people to better communicate and connect, but it has been clear for years that the internet requires regulation. Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the internet, has said it; the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has said it; and Facebook has said it.
This response on online harms is overdue, weak and ultimately ineffective. Social media companies will have a duty of care, which Ofcom will regulate—good. Tech companies always had a duty of care, in my opinion, but the first online suicide was over 10 years ago, and still victims await legislation. When will these proposals be law?
Instead of creating a new regulator, the Government have given responsibility to Ofcom. I like Ofcom—I used to work for it—but in the last ten years it has had the BBC, postal services and more added to its remit. What additional resource will it have? What powers of enforcement will it have? Companies will regulate complaints themselves, although we are told that it will be transparent—how? The transparency working group has been mentioned, so could we have some transparency on that?
New online harms are emerging. Just a few weeks ago the smart doorbell system Ring was hacked, putting children at risk. Algorithms, facial recognition and artificial intelligence are not addressed—why not? In a week’s time the European Union will announce measures for digital services regulation. Has the Minister spoken with the EU about alignment, and if not, why not?
Online harms cause untold damage in the real world. If the Minister cannot give clear answers to these questions, victims past and present will have lost out in another wasted year.
Matt Warman
I welcome the tone of the hon. Lady on this. These are hugely important issues that affect real people. We call them online harms, but they are profoundly real for the people affected. She is right that legislation is overdue; Parliament should have acted many years ago to address the issue. But the reality is that the duty of care that, in her opinion, social media companies have to their users will be put into law by this Parliament. That is progress, and I think we should welcome it.
We will bring forward the legislation in this Session. We will produce the full consultation response by the spring. We will be going as fast as possible. The hon. Lady wants us to go faster. I welcome the tone that she has struck, but I know that she would not want us to rush and then introduce half-formed legislation that would not work. If we committed to pre-legislative scrutiny, we would be introducing the legislation in the next Session, and that is too long a delay.
I will try to answer some of the many entirely legitimate questions that the hon. Lady asked. She is right that the NSPCC and Facebook have welcomed this. The industry is ready and ripe for regulation, and we should work together to deliver it. Like the Chair of the Select Committee, she asked what additional resources and enforcement powers Ofcom would have. We will ensure that Ofcom has the resources and the enforcement powers that it says are going to be the most effective. I hope that will be a transparent and open conversation.
The hon. Lady mentioned the internet of things, which is an important area. Harms that derive from being online are not limited to social media; they now extend to the doorbells she mentioned and a whole host of other things. She will know that this Government have already committed, through what we call “secure by design”, to legislate on that. I look forward to our bringing that forward by whatever vehicle as soon as we possibly can. That is why we have talked about it already.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the digital services regulation. Of course, we work in consultation with countries around the world. This is a global industry. Britain is taking the lead; it is right that an open and liberal democracy takes the lead on these difficult decisions. We will do this as fast as we possibly can. We will not be delayed by the activities of other countries, but we will work with them.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The Science and Technology Committee in the last Parliament conducted a significant inquiry into the impact of social media on young people’s health, so I welcome the fact that the Minister has committed to the principal recommendation of the Committee’s report—that Ofcom should be given the responsibility for regulation in this area. But may I press him on the timing of the statutory powers for Ofcom? There is no time to lose, as the Committee’s report and Members today have made clear. I welcome the fact that the legislation will be introduced in this Session. When it comes to pre-legislative scrutiny, I hope that he will take into account the precedent set by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in relation to the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill, which was introduced very quickly within a Session and included all the recommendations of the Committee. There is a big opportunity for the work of both the Science and Technology Committee and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee to inform rapid legislation that will give great comfort to our constituents.
Matt Warman
I have a great deal of time for the Science and Technology Committee, having served on it myself. This is an important area that cuts across a number of different Select Committees. If we are going to pay attention to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, it is right that we should also look at how we can work with others—while not slowing things down—because this is a very important issue. We will continue that conversation with my right hon. Friend as soon as possible. As I said earlier, we will work with Ofcom to ensure its powers are in legislation as quickly as possible, but also that those powers are developed enough to ensure that they are really effective and persist beyond the current generation of technology, because we surely try to make legislation that does not need to be remade every year.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
It is important that we respond to the new cross-border challenges that have arisen as a result of our society moving increasingly online. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the Scottish Government’s internet safety plan for children, and I hope that he will co-operate with the devolved Administrations on this issue.
The consultation on this area closed last summer, and it has to be said that a delay of concrete proposals until spring does not suggest an atmosphere of urgency. Will the Minister commit to no further delays in Government action past the spring deadline and ensure that the tech companies do not dictate the pace of reform? Moreover, will he confirm whether the Government will be giving Ofcom powers to make directors of social media companies personally liable—including facing prosecution for harmful content—and that these proposals have not been removed from the Government’s plans in the face of lobbying by tech execs? Does he agree that, although tightening regulations in this way is necessary, we also need regulations to close the loopholes that are seeing dark money being funnelled to political parties and campaigns in this country in a manner which, if it had happened in other states, would have the whole House of Commons united in condemnation?
Matt Warman
I look forward to working with the Scottish Government on their plans. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not a devolved matter, but it is important that we listen to all voices. What we did yesterday kicked off a process that I hope will be very collaborative, and we will work with as many stakeholders as we can possibly find.
I want to be absolutely clear that, whatever the hon. Gentleman might have read in some newspapers, not a single word of the response that we published yesterday was watered down at the request of tech companies. We have gone faster than many have suggested we might have been able to, and we will certainly not be delaying. My appetite is only for us to go as quickly as we possibly can.
The hon. Gentleman talked about director liability, which is something that has been effective—in financial services regulation, for instance. I look forward to looking at all possible options when it comes to sanctions. I want them to be as effective as possible, and nothing is off the table, whatever he might have read. I will leave his comments on financial matters, as they are issues that would be covered by other legislation.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
My hon. Friend has already helpfully recognised that what the regulator in this space requires is the legislative authority to act, the personnel and resources needed to act, and, of course, the sanctions and powers needed to act. Is it not also right, though, that the urgency in giving the regulator those things is not just the need, great though it is, to protect vulnerable people, but the fact that this country could and should lead globally on this, and we will only do so if we get on with it?
Matt Warman
I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. and learned Friend did as Secretary of State in leading this agenda. He is absolutely right. Ofcom needs the powers and resources to get this job done properly, but it also needs to make sure that we seize every possible opportunity that comes from the digital economy. Getting that balance right, alongside freedom of expression, is the priority that he set as Secretary of State. We will continue to do that, and we will not go any slower than we absolutely need to.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Two years ago, in debating the Bill that became the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, we discussed the problem that weapons that cannot be lawfully purchased in the UK are nevertheless freely available to buy online. Will the changes the Minister envisages address that specific problem?
Matt Warman
Obviously, the duty of care is wide-ranging. I am conscious that we would expect economic harms, for instance, to be picked up through other legislation. Similarly, the Offensive Weapons Act itself picks up some other areas. This is one of the issues that we have to look at to make sure that there are none of the loopholes that the right hon. Gentleman describes. It is a valuable point.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is precisely Ofcom’s experience in broadcasting and telecoms that make it ideally placed to take on this regulatory role of duty of care?
Matt Warman
Yes, I absolutely do agree. Ofcom is perfectly placed to balance our absolutely unequivocal commitment to free speech with the need to regulate an industry that is, as I said, ripe for regulation.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Could the Minister share some more details about the scope of this announcement? Specifically, does it cover threats to democracy and abuses of the electoral system that have been examined in the Lords by Lord Puttnam’s Committee, and will Ofcom be given future-proofing powers to adjust regulations not only to take account of technological changes but to protect against future threats that do not yet exist?
Matt Warman
The work that the Cabinet Office is doing on protecting democracy is a hugely important, albeit complementary, part of the process, rather than something that is covered by online harms. Our intention is that the regulations and the codes of practice that Ofcom will draw up will be as future-proofed as possible, because we do not want to be coming back time and again having this debate in a whole series of forums. We need to get on with this.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) on tabling this urgent question, and the Government on their response. Today’s focus has very much been on online content and protecting children, but will the Minister comment on how the internet continues to be used by jihadi extremists to recruit future terrorists? The Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill went through yesterday, so there is more money for counter-terrorism, policing, probation and rehabilitation. But ultimately, until we are able to remove harmful online content that is being used for recruitment, further terrorist attacks, I am afraid, will take place.
Matt Warman
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important to say that the online harms Bill is being drawn up jointly with my colleagues in the Home Office to tackle exactly the areas that he suggests. The Bill also has a hugely important component on tackling disinformation, which is related to what he is talking about, albeit, I appreciate, not the same thing. It is important that we mount what we might call a full-spectrum response when it comes to these threats.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Nearly two years ago, the then Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box justifying the cancellation of the second phase of the Leveson inquiry. His rationale for that was that the harm was no longer in print media but instead all online. I asked why we could not deal with both, and he brushed me off, but now it looks as though we are in danger of the Government not yet having done either. The Minister says that he does not want to rush things, but I gently say to him that there is no danger of anyone accusing the Government of having done that. He gave lots of very welcome detail today, but has not answered the one really burning question—when will we see draft legislation?
Matt Warman
I say gently back to the hon. Gentleman that plenty of tech companies would like us to go slower on this. I understand his point, but as I have said, no other country in the world is going faster to tackle online harms. We will submit a full Government response in the spring, and we will introduce legislation in this Session.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that we need to urge tech companies immediately to make it much easier for parents to set parental controls, to keep their children safer?
Matt Warman
Yes, I agree that the role and responsibilities of parents are hugely important. Some social media companies have made significant progress in that area and done good work in schools, but part of our media literacy work will focus specifically on parents, to ensure that they know exactly what is the right way for children to use the internet safely.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
This week saw celebrations to promote the safe and positive use of digital technology for children and young people on Safer Internet Day. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the work of the UK Safer Internet Centre, which works with more than 1,000 schools, children and businesses to make the internet a safer place for children and young people? Does he agree that the UK Government must do all they can to support that important work?
Matt Warman
I join the hon. Lady in congratulating all the work that goes on around Safer Internet Day. The Secretary of State attended the main conference on Tuesday, and I also appeared, albeit by video link. We are committed to working with all the charities and organisations that have made Safer Internet Day such a success, but with this legislation, we also recognise that it is important to go further.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as the director of a company that provides technology solutions to help schools deal with online harms. Will the Minister applaud the work of teachers and senior leadership teams in helping young people to avoid the excesses of online harm? I encourage him to provide focus on protecting freedom of speech and prioritising the need to tackle the harm being done to our minors. May I urge him to provide clarity on the metrics and timetable for this regulation, so that the creativity of our technology companies can be put to good use as well as to profitable use?
Matt Warman
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the extreme contribution of teachers in this area. They have adapted remarkably quickly to a changing threat, and I pay tribute to them. He is right to imply that many of the solutions to challenges posed by technology will be driven by technology companies themselves, and we have already worked with companies such as SuperAwesome to ensure that that happens as much as possible. He is also right that legislation cannot come soon enough.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
During the consultation period, Samaritans highlighted the need for international action to create a suicide-safer internet, in their words. What action do the Government propose to lead that international co-operation and ensure a reduction in suicides?
Matt Warman
The hon. Lady is right that pro-suicide content online has to be a key target for this sort of legislation. She is also right that we have to think of this as a global conversation, because these are often global companies. I would be happy to meet her to talk about what she thinks is the best way forward, because that is one of the most egregious consequences of the lack of regulation online.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I very much welcome this world-leading approach, but can my hon. Friend reassure me that, in bearing down on harms to children and young people, the legislation will cover not only the promotion and glamorisation of self-harm and eating disorders but their prevalence and normalisation on social media and the internet, which ultimately has greater reach?
Matt Warman
I know that my right hon. Friend was particularly interested in that area when he was Education Secretary, and I pay tribute to his work. The grey areas that he describes are the hardest and, in some ways, the most important to tackle, particularly around self-harm and eating disorders. Again, it is important to balance this with free speech, but there is no public good in the promotion of eating disorders, and we have to ensure that this regulation picks that up.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I note what the Minister said about watering down, but there is a suspicion abroad—not just on the Opposition Benches—that there has been a change of direction in the Government on this policy and that things such as penalties and prosecution for directors and the banning of companies that egregiously breach the new approach will be dropped in the final proposals. If that happens, it will mean that this policy is being run not from Westminster but from the west coast of America.
Matt Warman
The hon. Member could not be more wrong. We will deliver a sanctions regime that is effective. This is a world-leading approach, and we will take a world-leading approach to sanctions as well. The response that we published yesterday mentions director liability—to take just one example—so the suggestion that it is off the table is simply not correct.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
What discussions has the Minister had, particularly with social media companies, about them removing harmful online content as quickly as possible?
Matt Warman
We talk extensively to social media companies big and small—I draw my hon. Friend’s attention, although I am sure he is aware of it already, to their welcoming of our response—and we will continue to work with them. They have done good work already, but the fact that we are introducing legislation demonstrates that we do not think they have gone far enough yet.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Five years ago, I introduced a private Member’s Bill that would have made it illegal for explicit private and sexual pictures to be shared online without consent. Subsequently, a ban on so-called revenge porn was introduced. Thousands of victims are now coming forward to the police yet only a handful of cases are going to court because victims cannot have anonymity and have to prove malicious intent. Will the Minister ensure this is criminalised and that these obstacles are not in place, so that victims can get their just deserts and criminals can be punished?
Matt Warman
The hon. Member is right. Whether it is sexting or revenge porn, far too much has happened since his private Member’s Bill that has not been positive. Our proposed legislation will be one way of tackling a part of that, but other important complementary pieces of draft legislation, to be introduced via the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, will close all the loopholes with regard to the kind of behaviour he mentions.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
My hon. Friend has said he will ensure that Ofcom has the right resources and powers. Can he also assure the House that it has the right skills to keep abreast of all the changes in technology and potential new harms?
Matt Warman
My hon. Friend is right to imply that this is partly new for Ofcom. We will not only give it the resources it needs in the immediate future but make sure that it has a genuine plan to keep pace with technology so that we are no longer in the position we are in now, to some extent, of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
There is currently a divide between online gaming and online gambling, and this is resulting in children being groomed as the next generation of gamblers via the likes of loot boxes and skins. What are the UK Government doing to protect those children online?
Matt Warman
This came up earlier in DCMS oral questions, and we are looking at gambling through the review of the Gambling Act 2005, but the hon. Member is right that, in terms of gambling and gaming, the duty of care that we will introduce through our proposed legislation will range widely and will make sure that children in particular are protected online.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the regulatory regime that he proposes will be fair and proportionate and will expect the most out of those with the capacity, resources and market share to take substantive action to tackle online harms on their platforms?
Matt Warman
My hon. Friend is right that we need to make sure that the companies themselves step up to the plate, which they have not yet done enough, but the fact that we are doing this through legislation is an important indicator that we do not think it is simply down to the companies; the Government have to act.
Thangam Debbonaire
I wondered if it would be me or the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), Mr Speaker.
Will the Minister take the opportunity of the regrettable delay in bringing forward draft legislation to consider adopting a rebuttable principle that anything deemed illegal offline, whether the sale of guns, child pornography or whatever, should be similarly illegal online? Will he consider that principle in the legislation?
Matt Warman
The principle that the hon. Member describes is one that has long been at the heart of the thinking of Governments of all colours. What we are doing now is not only making sure that what is illegal offline is illegal online in theory, but through this legislation making sure that that is also the case in practice in terms of enforcement. I absolutely agree with what she is seeking to achieve.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
My hon. Friend will know that the online space is crucial for SME incubation. Does it remain the Minister’s estimation that a very small percentage of UK businesses will be affected by our new online harms proposals, and that the vast majority of small firms will not need to worry about adapting to this new legal framework?
Matt Warman
Yes, the figure we have talked about in the consultation is that no more than 5% of UK businesses will be affected by this legislation. We are mindful of the challenges presented by technology, but this is a profoundly pro-tech Government. We see those opportunities, and we will make sure that businesses, small and large, can seize them in a way that is safe for all our citizens.
Jim Shannon
Will the Minister in particular underline the fact that there is a duty of care for digital users that extends not simply to monetary impropriety but to ensuring that digital forums are not seen as a mechanism for bullying under the freedom of expression banner. Will the duty of care be enshrined in law and enforced vigorously?
Matt Warman
Yes, is the short answer. The duty of care is a central part of this piece of legislation. It is the way in which we protect children and vulnerable people from exactly the kind of disgraceful behaviour that the hon. Member describes.
Maternity Services: East Kent
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
We now come to the next urgent question, which I will run for up to 30 minutes.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the provision and safety of maternity services in East Kent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I will set out the situation concerning East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust in line with the written statement laid in Parliament this morning. In fact, I took steps to inform Parliament of this matter before the UQ was requested, and I hope that reflects the importance I place on this issue. Before I begin, I would like to express my deepest and most heartfelt sympathies for the patients and families who have been affected.
I made a statement on 28 January on concerns about maternity services in East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, and I would now like to update the House based on the reports from the independent Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch and the Care Quality Commission. I requested that both HSIB and the CQC report back to me within 14 days when I instructed them to go into East Kent trust two weeks ago, and they reported to me on Monday.
HSIB has already conducted a number of maternity investigations at the trust as part of its national maternity investigation programme. These identified a number of safety concerns, including the availability of skilled staff—particularly out of hours—access to neonatal resuscitation equipment and the speed with which patients’ concerns are escalated up to senior clinicians and obstetricians, along with failings in leadership and governance.
As requested, the CQC carried out an unannounced inspection of the trust’s maternity services between 22 January and 5 February. It has written to the trust with an oversight of its findings, and the full inspection report will be published in due course. The CQC received additional information from the trust this week, following its request for further assurances on triage, day care and medical staffing. The CQC is considering this information. It is important that everyone is aware that the CQC is in regular contact with the trust and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.
From the findings provided to me by HSIB and the CQC, it is clear that the challenges at East Kent point to a range of issues, including having the right staff with the right skills in the right place, effective multidisciplinary working, clear collaborative working between midwives and doctors, good communication and effective leadership support, but it would be wrong to speculate that there is indeed one single cause.
NHS England and NHS Improvement are working closely with the trust and have taken some immediate actions. First, the regional director and regional chief nurse are providing support to the trust, and the medical director will address concerns surrounding appropriate senior medical oversight. Secondly, the regional chief nurse is providing support to the director of nursing and head of midwifery, to prioritise and focus their local maternity improvement plans and address identified safety concerns. They will also review the effectiveness of clinical governance and executive leadership support. That will include ensuring that the trust learns from all historical cases, and disseminates that learning throughout the trust.
The Chief Midwifery Officer, Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, has sent an independent clinical support team to the trust to provide assurances that all possible measures are being taken. That expert team includes a director of midwifery services from an outstanding trust, two consultant obstetricians, and a consultant paediatrician and neonatologist. She has placed the very best at the heart of the trust, on the wards, and at the bedsides of patients, with fresh eyes to oversee the care currently being delivered. The independent team is working with trust staff to deliver immediate improvements to care, and to put in place robust and comprehensive processes to support improvements in standards over the long term. Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent has personally visited the trust to assess the changes being put in place, and to ensure that improvements are moving at pace.
Jenny Hughes, chief midwife for the south-east region, is working with the trust directly, and regional and national teams from NHS England and NHS Improvement will continue to work with the trust. The trust is taking the issue seriously and is working closely with NHS England and NHS Improvement. It has created and filled several specialist midwife posts. Safety huddles, where safety issues are regularly and frequently discussed, have been embedded on both sites to anticipate problems before they occur, and multidisciplinary teams are working collaboratively.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister is supposed to speak for three minutes, but we are now at five minutes plus. I realise that she has been given a lot of notes, and I think officials ought to take on board the time. I am not looking to you, but I am looking to others to help in the future. I am sure we will be coming to the end of the remarks, as there are lots of questions.
Ms Dorries
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think in defence of my officials, because this is such a sensitive issue—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not getting into a debate about this. I do not make the rules of the House. The House makes the rules, and it has decided that responses should be for three minutes, not me.
Ms Dorries
I will go straight to my closing statement, Mr Speaker. I reiterate my condolences, particular to the family of Harry Richford and all those affected. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for raising this important issue. The Government are fully committed to reducing patient harm and improving the safety of maternity services.
Sir Roger Gale
I will try hard not to abuse your generosity, Mr Speaker, and on behalf of Tom and Sarah Richford I thank you for allowing me to ask this desperately sad and desperately urgent question. I also thank the Minister for her swift and robust action since the report landed on her desk on Monday night, which was based largely on her personal professional experience. I am deeply grateful, and I know that the families are too.
This morning, at an early hour, I spoke for half an hour with a husband and wife who now live in Australia. Two months after the death of Harry Richford, they lost their own child under similarly tragic circumstances, and it was the most harrowing call I have taken in 36 years in this House. Those parents deserve and need the opportunity to achieve closure and move forward, and they need to know that the failures in protocol, in clinical judgment, and in management, have been addressed.
Will my hon. Friend publish the Care Quality Commission report to which she referred as soon as possible? Will she seriously consider establishing an independent inquiry, so that at the very least, Harry Richford’s parents, Rosie’s parents, and others, will know that their children have not died in vain, and that this will never, ever, happen again?
Ms Dorries
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and suggestions. In response to his call for an independent inquiry, last night I asked my officials to look into sending the independent Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch back in to do a deep dive into historical and existing cases at the trust. I want to reiterate that the trust is a safe place for any woman who is pregnant or giving birth. We have some of the very best people and clinicians working in that trust right now.
I would just like to add that NHS England and NHS Improvement are themselves commissioning an independent review into East Kent maternity services, so my right hon. Friend’s question has been answered. That is the news I have just been given. We are taking this situation very seriously. We will publish the findings of the HSIB and CQC reports in due course, because we take this matter—I personally take this matter—very seriously.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Our thoughts go out to all the families, including the family of Harry Richford, who have endured unimaginable heartbreak because of avoidable and preventable failings at the trust. Harry Richford was aged just seven days when he died. His death was described by the coroner as “wholly avoidable”. This was a wholly avoidable tragedy and not, as the trust originally said, “expected”. After Harry died, the trust refused to refer the case to the coroner and it was only the persistence of the family that led to the inquiry.
The trust will now receive special support to help turn things around, but can the Minister outline exactly what that support will be, by whom and where the funding is coming from? Why has it taken us so long to get to this point? It was reported earlier this month that despite evidence in a report by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists back in February 2016, the same mistakes were made in subsequent years. We need an explanation for why those warnings four years ago were allowed to go unnoticed and unaddressed. I understand that the trust will not be put into special measures and it seems that the chief executive and the medical director will be staying in post. However, given the trust’s failure to deal with those identified failings at the first opportunity, there must surely be questions about the local leadership. Can the Minister outline whether anyone in the trust will be held personally accountable?
Once again, we are unfortunately hearing about another tragedy where the culture has exacerbated the pain suffered by the family: denial, obfuscation and a staggering lack of transparency. Why is it that these issues only come to light because of the persistence and bravery of the affected families? We need to create a culture within the NHS where safety concerns can be raised by trained staff at all levels, free from fear so that issues are dealt with quickly. Perhaps the biggest concern we have is that we do not know the true number of avoidable maternity deaths at the trust.
I would like to join Harry’s family and other Members in calling for a full independent inquiry. I understand that the HSIB deep dive will address matters to some extent, but I do not think it is the full transparent inquiry that the parents deserve and demand.
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his collaborative tone on this issue. I think he may have missed my last comment, which was that NHS England and NHS Improvement will be commissioning an independent inquiry. That has been decided this morning, so that will happen.
On the hon. Gentleman’s first question about what is happening to support the trust now, NHS Improvement is in there. As I said, the chief midwife, Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, has sent in some of the best midwives, obstetricians and neonatologists in the country from outstanding trusts to support the trust. They are having twice-daily huddles on the wards, which is where multi- disciplinary teams get together and discuss on an ongoing and regular basis what is happening on the wards, what disciplines are involved and what measures are being taken. We have fresh eyes looking at the cartography that measures foetal heart rates and contractions. We have a second pair of eyes reading those cartography read-outs, so it is not just down to one midwife.
A huge amount of support has gone into the trust. As I said, it is today a safe place for anyone to give birth. We are also asking HSIB to go in to do that deep dive to look at historical issues. Whether that will continue in light of the fact that NHS England is commissioning an independent inquiry is something I need to find out when I leave the Chamber. However, I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman and everybody that this is an issue that I take very, very seriously.
Babies bring joy and happiness when they arrive, and every family—every mother, every father and, indeed, every grandparent—is entitled to know that when they or their relative is in hospital, the delivery will happen in a safe environment, with the very best care. I can say that that is the case at East Kent now, and I—we all—will strive to make sure that it is the case at every hospital.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for tabling this urgent question and for speaking so powerfully. I also thank the Minister for her work to respond to this. I, for one, hope that she continues in her role after the reshuffle because of her incredible commitment to patient safety.
What worries members of the public is that the NHS appears to be much better at transparency about care failures, but not always much better at learning from those failures. Does the Minister agree that that underlines the vital importance of the independent investigations that HSIB does into every Each Baby Counts incident, and the need for safe spaces so that doctors, nurses and midwives can talk openly and freely about what they think went wrong? Will she also consider publishing the report that CQC has already done into what is happening to reassure families that we are indeed confronting all these difficult issues?
Ms Dorries
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the issues in dealing with the ongoing problem—this is a bit like the airline industry—is that we need to generate a culture in which NHS staff feel able to speak up without fear of blame or litigation and we can take learning forward. Another issue is that when we have inquiries, we should take the recommendations and ensure that they are implemented. That piece of work is also going forward, along with HSIB and inquiries. We should look at implementing absolutely everything that we can to make sure that the safest possible environment exists.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for addressing these urgent issues and to the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for securing the urgent question, as well as to the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), who has shown a real interest in this case—especially now that he is Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. I thank them very much.
I am grateful that we are talking about these inquiries and investigations. So many things have been brought up in the reports, and there are many questions from my constituents, dozens of whom are now really terrified about their future pregnancies and having babies in the area. Will the Minister think about committing to safe staffing levels, because there are so many issues in our trust, and that would be one way to reassure staff and patients?
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Lady for her commitment to working with her constituents, which is shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke). I think that we should refrain from using words such as “terrified” because, as I said, the trust is a safe place for any woman to give birth. We have the best midwives, obstetricians and neonatologists from outstanding trusts working there now. She will know, as I do, that the trust’s location is slightly remote. Recruitment outside the major cities is a difficult issue, and we have to look at that for maternity services in trusts that are outlying in geographical terms. She is absolutely right to raise that issue, but I reiterate that it is very important that she lets her constituents know that the trust is a safe and welcoming place for women to go and give birth, because some of the very best staff in the country are working there right now and making sure that that is the case.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for his respect and diligence in securing answers for the family of baby Harry Richford, and also the hard work, commitment and compassion that has been shown by the Minister, particularly over the last two weeks, when she has worked night and day to make sure that there is a healthy and safe environment for our constituents—I thank her for that. Such strong and compassionate leadership in the handling of these tragic matters has not been shown by the trust, and I would like assurances that matters of culture, leadership and management will be addressed in the next stage, together with any update on whether inquests will be extended in relation to situations such as baby Tallulah-Rai, when there cannot currently be an inquest?
Ms Dorries
My hon. Friend was not in her usual place when I referred to her earlier, but now she is! I thank her for her kind comments.
I think that we now need to let the NHS and NHS Improvement go in and do their work, and to have the independent inquiry. As my hon. Friend knows, when an independent inquiry is taking place, these issues become more difficult to talk about, but I am sure that the inquiry will include a full assessment of the executive team and the board at the hospital, because those at the top must take full responsibility for whatever has happened in the trust. I hope that Simon Stevens of NHS England will not mind my saying that no stone will be left unturned. I will certainly be seeking reassurances that that is the case, and, from ward level to the chief executive’s office, this inquiry will be thorough and robust, because I will make sure that it is.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) described powerfully the devastation and grief that these families are going through. Can the Minister reassure us that they are being given support to help them through this really difficult time?
Ms Dorries
I must congratulate Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, the chief midwifery officer at NHS Improvement—we are very lucky to have her. Compassion drives her, along with the absolute pursuit of excellent maternity standards. I know that there will be support for those families, and that NHS Improvement will also be reaching out to women who are pregnant and are due to go into the trust.
Let me say this, because I did not mention it in my original response. A number of measures are being taken in relation to the trust, which I probably cannot specify, but a written ministerial statement, which is in the House of Commons Library, gives the full list. I want Members to be reassured that those measures are thorough and robust, and they are working.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her excellent work and I hope that she does indeed continue in her present position.
Tragically, East Kent is not just a one-off; there seems to be a more widespread culture of denial throughout the NHS. We have seen that in the trust in my constituency. The management is saying, “It is historic, it is scare- mongering, it is just a few preventable deaths.” Does the Minister agree that if those in hospital management are to learn lessons, it is essential that that culture of denial is tackled and they recognise their shortcomings so that services improve?
Ms Dorries
As my hon. Friend knows, I have been to Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust to reassure myself—line by line—that every recommendation that was made by the Care Quality Commission has been implemented and is working. I thank her for raising this issue, but I also want to emphasise that Shrewsbury and Telford is a safe place for women to give birth, because the same robust approach is being taken there. It is a safe environment, and, as my hon. Friend will know, a new midwife-led unit will be opening shortly.
However, there is a culture that I know concerns the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). In such circumstances, trusts do not feel able to put their arms around parents, to say sorry, to explain to them what has happened, and to show compassion or care. That culture must be broken, and I think that HSIB will go a long way towards contributing to the process.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
All too often when a baby dies, the shutters come down in a trust and we cannot get the answers that we need. Will the Minister—who is providing great leadership in this area—meet members of the all-party group on baby loss to discuss how best we can use MBRRACE-UK, HSIB and other investigators to get to the bottom of what happens? Will she also think about making maternal deaths a never event?
Ms Dorries
I fear that you will shout at me again, Mr Speaker, if I try to answer my hon. Friend’s question fully, because I agree with everything that she has said. Maternal deaths absolutely must become a never event, and we must focus on making pre-eclampsia and post-partum haemorrhage, which lead to such deaths, never events. I went to the first meeting of the APPG on baby loss and, as my hon. Friend knows, I am always happy to go and hear anything that anyone has to say about this issue that will help our work in trying to improve maternity standards[Official Report, 2 March 2020, Vol. 672, c. 4MC.].
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I should mention at the start of my question that I work as a consultant paediatrician, and that I look after babies and have attended a number of deliveries. I would like to thank the Minister for being so thorough, robust and dedicated in ensuring that this situation improves and that babies are safely delivered throughout the country. In my practice, I have noticed that all baby deaths and adverse outcomes are thoroughly investigated locally, but in my experience this tends to be done just locally. The lessons might be shared internally, but they are not being shared with other hospitals down the road, where the same mistake might be made. I welcome what she is doing, but can she reassure me that those lessons will be shared nationally, so that everyone can benefit from the lessons that are learned, and that such sharing will be widespread so that future tragedies are prevented? Can she also reassure me that, when she sets up the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch process, its culture is such that doctors, nurses and midwives are able to give full and free answers, and that we get the balance between accountability and blame just right?
Ms Dorries
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments as a consultant paediatrician. She is a huge source of advice to me at times, including informally over a cup of tea. On her first question: yes, she is absolutely right to say that the investigations take place at local level and that that goes inwards into the local trust. I think that is something that we have to review. On her question about disseminating learning nationally, that comes through HSIB, but she is right to suggest that HSIB does not go into every investigation. One of the problems with a trust investigating itself and taking the learning inwards is the question of what reassurance we have that lessons are being learned and disseminated, and that improvements are taking place. I am going to ask officials to look at that, because we might have to work on developing a different model for maternity services, although we do have NHS Resolution and the HSIB, and a lot of work is going on in this area. However, we have seen too many cases in too short a space of time, and we now have to look at maternity services and patient safety with fresh eyes and decide how we make this the best for parents who have tragically lost a baby, from that moment onwards until they move forward.
Business of the House
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 24 February will include:
Monday 24 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.
Tuesday 25 February—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by Opposition day (4th allotted day). There will be a debate on tax avoidance and evasion followed by a debate on social care. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
Wednesday 26 February—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments followed by Second Reading of the Environment Bill followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism.
Thursday 27 February—General debate on Welsh Affairs.
Friday 28 February—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 2 March will include:
Monday 2 March—Second Reading of the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill followed by: the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for the business for the last week of February. I cannot believe time has flown so quickly! It is nine weeks since the last election, and already it seems that the few are abdicating their responsibilities for the many. Nothing has been said about the deaths resulting from smart motorways. The Minister who signed them off, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), has called for a halt and accused Highways England of “casually ignoring commitments” on safety systems. At the same time, the bosses at Highways England have received a pay rise, with the number who have salaries over £100,000 rising from six to 63 since 2013. Why is this happening when the staff at the bottom have received a pay rise of 0% or 1%? Who are those bosses accountable to? This is exactly what contributes to the democratic deficit. May we have a statement on why they were able to award themselves that pay rise, and on when smart motorways will end?
It is nine weeks since the last election, and now it has all been revealed: border checks are inevitable. We did not hear that phrase during the Brexit debate. The smart border will apparently not be in place until 2025. The British Retail Consortium says an increase in border checks will affect fresh food supplies unless there is a massive upgrade in border facilities. Importers and exporters are going face huge costs. Could we have a statement on the readiness of smart borders or at least on what they are going to look like?
It has been nine weeks since the last election, and already the Government have run out of files, or did they intend to publish their process and procedure on their position on financial negotiations? We now know that the financial sector will get its permanent equivalence for decades, while the fishing industry may be under threat, from Grimsby to Brixham. We know that the EU wants existing reciprocal arrangements to be maintained. Could the Leader say whether the fishing industry is going to be sold down the river—or the ocean—from Grimsby to Brixham?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) was right when he asked his urgent question and asked for a review. The review will look into the apparent injustices in the deportation process. The Government have to stop these deportations. Hon. Members on both sides have constituents involved. My hon. Friends the Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) all had constituents on the flight concerned. It is right that those people had to be prevented from being deported. The courts have said, “We want due process.” These are British citizens; they deserve fairness, and they need to know their rights. I do not understand what the reason for the secrecy is—this is very simple. Can the Leader of the House guarantee that there will be no further deportations until that review has been published?
One review that has been published is the National Audit Office report into the death by suicide of benefit claimants. It said that an internal review of the cases was not properly implemented. Coroners are sending in reports of avoidable deaths. The Government’s policy is seriously affecting people’s lives. When will we have a statement from a Minister, as asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), on these avoidable deaths?
Nazanin, Anoosheh, Kylie and others do not deserve to be in prison, as the Leader of the House has mentioned so many times. It is half-term for Gabriella. There has been no update from the Prime Minister for the last three weeks.
I want to ask the Leader of the House what it feels like to be replaced by three cartoon characters. It’s classic Dom, as John Crace—one of the journalists banned from a No. 10 briefing—said. We want Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grubb. At least there are more of them—and that is classic BBC.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by saying what a real pleasure it was yesterday to be at the Privy Council, where the right hon. Lady was sworn as a member? I congratulate her on that. To my mind, it was a very special occasion, and certainly one I will remember.
The right hon. Lady raises some very important questions relating to the pay rises at Highways England when the smart motorways programme is under such question. I think we all have the deepest sympathy for those who have been affected by the failures on smart motorways, and these concerns have registered very clearly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who has said in unequivocal terms:
“Smart motorways must be as safe or safer than regular motorways, or we shouldn’t have them at all.”
However, there is a review going on, and it would be wrong of me to try to pre-empt it.
As regards leaving the European Union and border checks, there will be an opportunity at Cabinet Office questions on Thursday the 27th to question the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the work that he has been doing. However, we are leaving the European Union, and therefore things will change. We will be negotiating with it as an independent sovereign state on an equal basis, not as a supplicant, and that is quite right. That will apply to all the negotiations that we have. I am absolutely confident that the interests of our fishing industry will be protected.
I am deeply puzzled by the Labour party’s opposition to the deportation of criminals, particularly as it is done under a 2007 Act of Parliament that was passed when the Labour party was in office. It is absolutely wrong and really surprising that the Labour party wishes to conflate criminals with people affected by the Windrush scandal. The Windrush scandal affected innocent people who were British citizens and had an absolute right to be here. They should not be confused with people who have broken the law, who have committed either many offences or offences leading to more than one year in prison, and who do not have a right to be in this country. Their deportation is right, and the clarification and compensation provided by the Windrush Compensation Scheme (Expenditure) Bill, on which we voted earlier this week, for those sadly affected by the Windrush scandal is a completely different and separate issue—it is of top priority and importance to emphasise that. The Government must keep the country safe, and deporting foreign criminals is part of that.
As always, the right hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. The Government continue to be in touch, but we must always remember that the Iranian Government are the Government who are at fault and who are behaving in a way that is not in accordance with international norms. That is where our criticism should be focused.
I have six children and, as could be imagined, I watch a lot of cartoons—I am quite an expert. I feel I have much in common with Daddy Pig. Certainly any DIY I ever try goes very badly wrong, so it is best left to others, and my children have me wrapped around their little finger. Alfred would not forgive me if I did not put in a word for “Thomas & Friends.” The good news there is for Gordon, who will be thundering down a new High Speed 2 line in the not-too-distant future.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Leader of the House will no doubt know the importance of 23 June, which is, of course, Public Service Day. Would it not be right to have a bank holiday to celebrate that, and maybe also to celebrate the wonderful referendum on the same date, to celebrate the Queen’s official birthday and to celebrate the Union? Let us call it United Nations Day. Can we have a statement to that effect next week?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend possibly means United Kingdom Day rather than United Nations Day, which, from memory, is 24 October. If we are thinking of a date in June, is not 18 June a particularly special day, Mr Speaker?
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Given the events of today, I suppose we should congratulate the Leader of the House on surviving, at least thus far, the Cabinet cull that is currently under way. We should be grateful that our business is led by someone who has proven his indispensability to the Prime Minister.
I want to make a general comment on the business because, not for the first time, it appears to be somewhat lacklustre and thin. We now seem to be moving to having Opposition day debates on an almost weekly basis because of the Government’s inability to fill their timetable. Some of the matters in this statement are relatively minor, or there is no great disagreement on the direction of travel, merely, as in the case of the environment, on the speed with which we should be progressing.
Given the Prime Minister’s bravado in the aftermath of the election, when can we expect to see, in legislative proposals, the Johnsonian vision for the future of Britain? When can we expect something rather more meaty than the proposals before us today? Or is it the case that, in fact, the Government do not have the ideas to which they alluded during the election campaign?
Finally, I return to the question I have now asked several times simply because I have not yet had an adequate answer. When will this Government bring forward proposals to recognise the fact that they do not have a mandate for their programme in the nation of Scotland? The result on 12 December made it clear that people in Scotland wish to choose an alternative direction to the one proposed by the Government, and the Government should not continue to ignore public opinion in Scotland in this way.
When I have previously asked the Leader of the House about this, his response has been, “Oh, there was a referendum six years ago that settled the matter.” Well, I ask him again. Does he accept the notion of the claim of right for Scotland and that the people who live in that country have the right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs? Does that right exist today, or is it just a matter of history?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his gracious welcome of my continuing presence. I am sure that if I am suddenly called away, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), will be more than able to take over for the rest of the session.
The Government are bubbling over with brilliant ideas; I have never known a Government with more ideas coming through. Chairing the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee, I see these fantastic ideas. Parliamentary draftsmen are drafting away at the speed of light to prepare an exciting outpouring of Bills, which were announced in the Queen’s Speech and which will be coming through. To say that what we are offering up after the recess is “thin” is absurd. We are having a fundamental Environment Bill, which will legislate for the future of our environment and be a world-leading Bill. We also have the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, which will ensure that we are at the forefront of medical technology. Those are two fundamentally important Bills. If necessary, we will also be dealing with the remaining parts relating to a terrorism Bill safeguarding the nation. Some Members really are hard to please! We then put in an Opposition day, and for the Opposition to complain about Opposition days is like turkeys complaining that Christmas has been cancelled—it seems to me to be an eccentricity. As regards the claim of right, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I have given several times before.
Mr Speaker
Let me help the House by saying that I am expecting to run business questions for 45 minutes or thereabouts.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on pension funds, particularly those in the local government sector? Evidence has emerged this week that in London there is a £17.98 billion deficit between the assets and the liabilities. Clearly the concern is that this is unsustainable, right across the piece. This ranges from Bromley Council having a £59.1 million deficit to Brent Council having an eye-watering £925.7 million deficit. Clearly there is a problem, and we should have a debate in Government time to expose this scandal and make sure that our hard-working public sector employees have their pensions protected.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Obviously, this is a very important point, affecting pension funds across the country, not just public sector ones. Fortunately, there is an opportunity to debate it, because we have a local government finance debate on 24 February. I advise my hon. Friend to take the matter up then. I will be more than happy to take it up with Ministers in advance of the debate, so that they are briefed and ready for his comments. The Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee is sitting poised, ready to ask me a question, and may no doubt have heard my hon. Friend’s request for a debate.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has pre-empted me, because when Members from across the House request time for debates on subjects of interest to them, he will no doubt be tempted in this session, on more than one occasion, to refer Members to the Backbench Business Committee. May I suggest that just for today he wipes all such suggestions from his mind, because the Backbench Business Committee has not yet been established? Along with the Chairs of all the other Committees, I remain a Chair without a Committee. I cannot determine anything. My Committee cannot determine anything. My Committee does not exist. I do not know what the delay is on the Government side, but it is preventing the Committees of this House from getting about their business.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important and valid point. The Government are keen that Committees should be set up as soon as is reasonably practicable, and we are, in the meantime, ensuring that the very popular debates that have been asked for historically and were given by the Government before the Backbench Business Committee existed are happening; so we will have the St David’s Day debate, as I announced.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Valuing Everyone training was made available to combat bullying and harassment, and all Members were encouraged to take part in that. Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether it is still available and that it is open to all parliamentary passholders?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope that Valuing Everyone training will improve the culture within this House, and it is available for all passholders. I know that that will be of particular interest to the Lobby, because a number of the complaints that came were from journalists who had been affected by these issues. It is not just about telling people to behave better; it is also about telling people that there is a system that will listen to them, where they can seek advice and consultations, and about how to make complaints. I encourage everybody to take this training, including the doyens of sketch-writers, who seem to find our proceedings so fascinating.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Yesterday, the Equality and Human Rights Commission announced that it is progressing legal action against the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care over the failure to move people with learning disabilities and autism into appropriate accommodation. The action is unprecedented, but the issues that have led to it have been known and documented at least since the Winterbourne View scandal eight years ago. Those issues have been raised in the Chamber on countless occasions in relation to individual cases, such as that of Bethany and of my constituent Matthew Garnett, yet the Government have failed to act. That failure affects more than 2,000 families throughout the country whose loved ones are still trapped in inappropriate accommodation, and countless more who have battled over months and years to get them out. Their stories are heartbreaking and their experiences unjustifiable and unacceptable.
May we have an urgent debate, as soon as possible after the recess, on the accommodation for people with learning disabilities and autistic people, and can it be held in Government time, so that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care can acknowledge the gravity of the situation, apologise to the families affected and set out the urgent action he will now take to right this wrong?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is obviously an extraordinarily serious matter that the whole House takes seriously and that the Government take seriously and want to see put right. An investigation is about to take place and the Government must obviously wait for the outcome. Expenditure on special educational needs is increasing by £700 million, but that is not a complete answer to what the hon. Lady asked for and I will take up the issue with the relevant Ministers immediately after this session.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Prime Minister said in his Christmas message:
“We stand with Christians everywhere, in solidarity, and will defend your right to practise your faith.”
Plainly, that was meant to include the UK, so may we have a statement on whether we can really call ourselves a tolerant, inclusive and diverse society that respects freedom of speech, whatever one’s religion or beliefs, if we deny the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association a platform in this country?
Mr Rees-Mogg
No-platforming is a particularly disagreeable modern trend. Although venues are allowed to take their own decisions about whether or not to host Franklin Graham during his upcoming visit, they must, like all service providers, be careful not to discriminate unlawfully on grounds of religion and belief. The UK has robust protections for freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and the price of living in a free, plural society is tolerating views and beliefs that we disagree with or are even offended by. That is fundamentally important. It is a sad truth that many people who tout themselves as being liberal are liberal only about what they like and are very intolerant of the views with which they disagree.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
My constituent’s elderly parents are due to return to China this Wednesday in order to meet their visa requirements. Given the coronavirus epidemic, they obviously want to delay their return without jeopardising future visas. In response to an urgent inquiry from my office, UK Visas and Immigration advised that it is “currently seeking guidance” on the issue. My constituent could contact an adviser, but that is not good enough, so can I get a Government statement confirming that my constituent’s parents can get an extended stay and that the Government will issue general guidance on the matter?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is exactly the sort of matter on which the Government should be clear. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue on behalf of his constituent. I cannot tell him the precise answer—I believe the Prime Minister was asked a similar question yesterday—but I will take up the issue after this session. That is absolutely what we ought to do for our constituents to try to get them clarity in such situations.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I had a busy night out on Friday last week with the Gloucestershire police special constabulary. As we all know, the specials are trusted volunteers who work with the police and keep us safe. I really welcome the focus on the 20,000 new police officers, but it would be appropriate for there to be a statement in the House about the recruitment and equipment needs of the special police constabulary, together with an opportunity for the Government to show the specials just how valued their voluntary work in our communities is.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the work done by special constables is admirable. It is worth noting that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), used to be a special constable and made an enormous contribution in that role. We are getting 20,000 extra police, but the special constables add to that. There will be a chance to raise the issue and to praise them and encourage more special constables to come forward in the debate on the police grant on Monday 24 February.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, in Westminster Hall, more than 30 Members of Parliament raised concerns about our constituents who are living in properties with unsafe cladding. Many of them are mortgage prisoners. They are facing life-changing bills and are having to put their lives on hold. Is it not about time that the Government had a longer debate in this Chamber about the real, serious concerns, as the Government, hopefully, come up with a swift solution to deal with this problem?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government are absolutely doing that and that the Department is pushing ahead with ensuring that unsafe cladding is removed as a priority. It has clear targets to do that. The debate has just taken place in Westminster Hall and, therefore, that is something that has been taken note of by the Government. So we have had the debate, but I can assure her that the Government take this matter properly seriously.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Earlier this week, we had the welcome announcement from the Prime Minister about additional funding for bus services. That will be particularly welcomed by my constituents in the rural part of the Cleethorpes constituency. May we have a debate in Government time to hear more details about this support and to give Members an opportunity to outline the needs in their own constituencies?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Every day in this House is Cleethorpes Day. We had a fantastic answer from the Prime Minister yesterday on ensuring that every possible service, junction and railway crossing was improved in Cleethorpes. Today, we are talking about the buses. This is a great priority, but I think it may be a subject for an Adjournment debate.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The charity Independent Age estimates that 2,754 pensioner households in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran are missing out on a combined £7.4 million every year in unclaimed pension credit. Worryingly, there have been no initiatives from the UK Government to improve pension credit take-up in recent years. Will the Leader of the House make a statement explaining why that is and what he personally will do to address the situation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Members of Parliament can help with this in encouraging people to take up benefits to which they are entitled. I am sure that the hon. Lady does that in her constituency and I commend her for doing so. But the issues around pensioners have been tackled by this Government. More than £120 billion will be spent on benefits for pensioners, £99 billion of which will be on the state pension in 2019-20. The triple lock is being maintained and the warm home discount scheme is being introduced and extended. So every effort is being made to help pensioners and I encourage hon. Members to persuade pensioners in their constituencies to claim what is their due.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The constituents of Aylesbury are extremely disappointed by the decision to proceed with HS2 not only because of the financial and environmental costs of the project, but because of the appalling way in which HS2 Ltd has treated residents and businesses during its enabling works. Will my right hon. Friend arrange to provide a statement to the House on the need for the company to make immediate amends and, crucially, to pay people the money it owes and to comply with all the legal requirements that have been placed on it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
First, I commend my hon. Friend for his rightful championing of his constituents’ interests. In all circumstances, Government and Government bodies must pay fair compensation justly and quickly to people. We are a society that believes in the rights of property. As Conservatives, we particularly think that that is important. It is one of the bases of our constitution that rights of property are there and can be taken away from people only with just compensation. Therefore, what he says is of great importance and I know that the Prime Minister is concerned about the way that the HS2 board has behaved in this regard.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House knows, obviously, that HS2 will mean that the time taken to get to Manchester will go down from two hours 10 minutes to one hour 10 minutes, but, at the same time, the time to get to Swansea will remain three hours. When will we have a proper debate to question why Wales gets only 1.5% of the rail money for 5% of the population? We must invest in a high-speed connection between Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea.
Mr Rees-Mogg
That matter was raised at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. The line is being electrified down to Cardiff. It happens to be the line that I use when I take the train, because very often the route is through Bath and Bristol. The improvements in that line benefit people as they go on into Wales, which I think is very important.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Inspired by Keats’ view that
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty”,
the commission established by the Government to advise on the built environment recently published its report, “Living with beauty”. It sets out eight priorities for reform and makes a series of recommendations, which the Leader of the House will know were welcomed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government—he also took the opportunity to apologise for the sacking last year of Sir Roger Scruton, the commission’s original chairman; the sacking was rescinded. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the relevant Minister to make a statement to the House on what the Government will do with the recommendations? It is only right that future generations can be proud of what we build and the places we make.
Mr Rees-Mogg
If I may, I will pay tribute to Sir Roger Scruton, who was one of the great conservative thinkers of recent decades. His point that beauty should be a fundamental part of our planning system is an essential one. It occurs to me that something as beautiful as the royal crescent at Bath would not be built under current regulations, and we need a system that would allow that. With regard to a statement, the Secretary of State will be here to answer questions on Monday 24 February and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will raise his point then.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
The baseline public health funding for Enfield Council was set in 2013 and takes no account of the growth in population, in need and in poverty, which all affect the funding that Enfield actually needs. May we therefore have a debate on fair public health funding for local authorities?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very glad to be helpful on this occasion by immediately granting what the hon. Lady has asked for, because on the first day back after the recess we will have a debate on local government funding, and I am sure that she will be able to raise her points then.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend might be aware that on Boxing day 2015 the town of Padiham in my constituency suffered significant flooding, which caused serious damage to residents and businesses. Having been promised flood defences, and the funding having been put in place, residents were rightly concerned and angry last week when storm Ciara hit, as work on the defences has still not commenced. May we have a debate in Government time so that we can see whether we can speed up the delivery of those defences?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made a statement to the House on Monday on the significant flooding caused by the heavy rain and the severe gale-force winds brought by the recent storm. We will be spending £4 billion on flood defences to protect homes and businesses better across the country from the devastating effects of flooding. Some £2.6 billion is being spent to protect the country from flooding more broadly, and 300,000 homes will have improved protection by 2020. But we also know that more needs to be done to ensure that households and businesses are more resilient to flooding, and the Government are implementing that.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Last month, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) raised the issue of Robert Skillen’s company, HELMS—Home Energy & Lifestyle Management Ltd—which defrauded hundreds of households across Scotland through the Government’s green deal scheme. I had constructive and positive engagement on the matter with the previous Minister, Claire O’Neill, but the promised improvements and the speed of decisions on complaints simply have not materialised. If the Leader of the House will not give us a debate, can he help to facilitate a meeting with the new Secretary of State, whoever that is—perhaps the departing Chancellor?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that issue in this forum. If ever Members feel that they are not getting a satisfactory response from the Government, I will do whatever I can to facilitate a proper and full response.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
Just before Christmas, the Post Office made a settlement with 550 post office workers, including my constituent Tracy Felstead, who was imprisoned at age 19 in Holloway prison after her till did not balance due to a technical glitch. May we have a debate in Government time to consider what is fast becoming a national scandal?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I share my hon. Friend’s concern that innocent people seem to have suffered because of IT flaws within the Post Office systems. That is entirely wrong and improper, and they ought to be compensated fairly. I think an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate would be very suitable.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Judging from media coverage this morning, it seems that the Government are planning to cut the payments to the Commonwealth secretariat due to the apparent scandal that is engulfing the secretary-general. I am not commenting on the rights and wrongs of that situation, but the Commonwealth is a very important institution to many of our constituents and is likely to be more important in the next few years—at least, I hope so. Could we have a statement on the situation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman raises a point of great significance. The Commonwealth is of fundamental importance. It is a powerful organisation, and it is a matter of concern that a number of countries, including New Zealand and Australia, have cut their funding because of concerns over the auditing of the headquarters of the Commonwealth. We must ensure that the auditing is put right and that people can have confidence in the way in which such a valued organisation is run.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Since July 2018, junctions 8 to 10 of the M23 have been reconstructed into a so-called smart motorway. The closures continue. Both north and south sections will be completely closed every weekend next month while the work is taking place. The absurdity of this situation is that smart motorways are now under review, so it could be that one is built at great inconvenience to travellers and will then need to be undone, probably causing more years of work. Can we please have a statement from the Transport Secretary?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. If we are going to get everybody in, questions and answers will need to be brief.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I completely share and sympathise with my hon. Friend’s concern because I travel down to Somerset almost every weekend on the M4, which is going through exactly the same pain. There are random closures without any proper warning and the gantries display messages saying that it will take a few minutes to get to an exit beyond the one that is closed. Highways England does not seem to give one proper information. It is a matter of great significance on which we should have debates, but I think it is more a subject for an Adjournment debate than a debate in Government time.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Following on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), I wish to draw attention to the hundreds of sub-postmasters across the country, including constituents of mine, who have lost their businesses and homes after paying out of their own pockets to make up for the failure of the Post Office’s Horizon IT system. May I also ask for a debate on how we can help them to get recompense and justice?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I reiterate the sympathy I have for these cases. Whether there is time for a debate in Government time, I cannot promise.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The Mottram bypass has been promised by politicians of all parties for well over 50 years. I am pleased that this Government have committed the money to build the bypass, and have confirmed that a planning application will be made soon. My constituents are understandably still very sceptical. May we have a debate on the timely delivery of transport infrastructure projects so that we can finally get the Mottram bypass built as soon as possible?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am not sure that there is going to be time for a debate in Government time, but £29 billion is going to be spent on road projects, and I think there is a general desire to get over the inertia that has affected so many projects across the country.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The changes planned for the IR35 regime raise major issues of uncertainty for contractors in the construction, IT and training sectors, and many others, in my constituency of Angus and, I am certain, right across the United Kingdom. May we have a statement on what steps the Government will take to protect the economy and industry from the very real threat of offshoring as a result of these changes, and on what support the Treasury will provide to contractors who face being driven out of business?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We will have the Budget on 11 March, but as I have said in answers to previous questions, it is of great importance that people know what tax they are expected to pay before the tax year in which they are expected to pay it. The Government are very conscious of that. A review of IR35 is under way, but I think we need answers relatively quickly.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Councillor Christine Wild, who has served the people of Bolton for many years, sadly died last week, having served the people of Westhoughton, Hunger Hill and Chew Moor doing often thankless work. Can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of the work that councillors do right across the country?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is a very good point. The selfless work done by councillors is of great importance. Although they get some expenses, it is basically voluntary work. We, of all parties, are lucky up and down this country to have people who are willing to give so much time to help their local communities. My hon. Friend might want to raise this in the coming debate on the forthcoming Adjournment.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Last Friday, the National Audit Office published a report on information held by the Department for Work and Pensions on suicides related to social security. The report revealed that there had been 69 suicides. Given the seriousness of this and the lack of a statement from the Department for Work and Pensions, can we now have a debate in Government time so that Members across this House can hold the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to account for this failure?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I understand that the National Audit Office is continuing a review of this. It is deeply troubling when suicides take place in any circumstances. Anything that can be done by the Government to reduce the number of suicides is something that the Government ought to be doing.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Post offices are very important in my constituency, particularly for the elderly and the vulnerable. Last year, South Kensington post office closed. Can we have a debate about the importance of post office provision in inner cities?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The number of post office closures has declined very significantly from an earlier peak, so post offices are now surviving in a way that they were not. I accept that they are very important community hubs, but I think that the specifics relating to an individual post office are best suited to an Adjournment debate.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
There is a growing problem of unscrupulous solicitors who seek out tenants taking out housing disrepair claims against housing associations and public bodies but do not warn their clients that they will be liable for costs when they lose. A constituent of mine was landed with a £12,000 bill having taken out a no win, no fee claim. May we have a debate on how we can protect tenants like my constituent against these unscrupulous solicitors?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is an important point. There will be questions to Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers on our first day back on 24 February. People should not be subject to unfair and unexpected fees; the fees should be set out clearly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will raise this on the 24th.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Grove station in my constituency was one of those closed in the Beeching cuts, and for over 40 years now my constituents have campaigned to have it reopened because it would connect them better, get people off congested and often unsafe roads and support our efforts to tackle climate change. May we have a debate on the importance of reopening stations such as Grove to our local economy, community and environment?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the campaign that he is waging on behalf of his constituents? I believe that his constituency is the birthplace of King Alfred, and he is dealing with this in a way that King Alfred would, I think, be proud of. The Government agree with the value of reopening stations and lines closed following the Beeching report and will spend £500 million to start reconnecting smaller towns. The Government will listen carefully to proposals, prioritising projects of the greatest potential, viability and economic benefit. As we assess and develop schemes, there is an ambition to expand the funding available. I therefore encourage my hon. Friend to keep making his case, and avoid burning cakes.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Last month, FaithAction was informed that its funding under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s integrated communities English language programme would not be renewed next year. It is having to make staff redundant, and this will also leave a gap in vital ESOL provision. May we have a statement on what new funding will replace this, and when?
Mr Rees-Mogg
People cannot assume that funding will continue indefinitely and must always plan accordingly in an ordinary business way. There will be questions to that Department on the Monday that we come back, and I think that is the right time to raise this matter.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Green-belt development is often on the edges of urban conurbations, meaning that while the proposed building site may be in a rural planning authority, the communities most directly affected may be in a neighbouring urban authority. May we have a debate on how we can make sure that the communities directly affected by proposed green-belt development can have their views and concerns properly considered in the planning process?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is an issue for many Members of Parliament—indeed, including for me in North East Somerset. In our manifesto, we were clear that we would protect and enhance the green belt, improve poor-quality land, increase biodiversity, and make our beautiful countryside more usable by local communities. To safeguard green spaces we will prioritise brownfield development for regeneration of our cities and towns. The national planning policy framework makes it clear that only in exceptional circumstances may a green-belt boundary be altered using the development plan process of consultation with local people. In answer to my hon. Friend’s question, given that there is consultation, I am not sure that we need an immediate debate.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I would like to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 141, signed by 56 colleagues across five political parties.
[That this House acknowledges that the Department for Work and Pensions commissioned an evidence review on the drivers of food bank use in 2018; notes the Government’s commitment to this House to publish the findings of the review; further notes the Government’s failure to date to publish those findings; and urges the Government to provide a clear deadline as a matter of urgency for the publication of the review to inform a public debate on the reasons for growing demand for food aid provision in the UK.]
The EDM concerns a Department for Work and Pensions review of food bank use that should have been published six months ago. May we have a statement from the Government on when this review will be published so that we can have an informed debate on food aid provision and the increasing demand for it across these islands?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The issues surrounding food banks are various and complicated, but it is worth bearing it in mind that there are 400,000 fewer people in absolute poverty than there were in 2010, and income inequality is down, so great strides are being made in ensuring that there is less poverty in this country. The publication date of reports is a matter to take up directly with the relevant Department.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is a keen historian and he will know that in Kidsgrove and Talke in my constituency we have the amazing Chatterley Whitfield colliery, which is sadly at risk of falling down and has been listed as such by the Victorian Society. Is he prepared to give parliamentary time to enable us to have a debate about the importance of protecting and preserving our industrial and cultural heritage?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As it was once suggested that I should myself be listed, I have a great affection for listed buildings and their protection. I think it would be right to seek an Adjournment debate on the colliery that my hon. Friend refers to because, in my view, it is exactly the type of constituency issue that is very well highlighted in Adjournment debates.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Before the EU referendum, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that
“the one thing that will not change will be our ability to trade freely with Europe”.
But he now says that it is likely that there will be physical checks, as well as, almost certainly, safety and security certificates, and that almost everybody exporting will need to complete customs declarations. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on whether he still thinks that concerns about broken promises on frictionless trade are, as he described them, Project Fear?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Project Fear was one of the reasons the Conservatives did so enormously well in the last election. People were fed up to the back teeth with Project Fear. I am glad to say that we are leaving the European Union. The consequence of that is that we will be dealing with the European Union as an independent, sovereign equal, and that will mean changes.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on how Government and local authorities can support taxi drivers? Taxi drivers are the largest self-employed sector in my constituency. We must work to ensure that they are able to earn a sustainable living and are not weighed down by disproportionate costs and heavy-handed regulation.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have the greatest admiration for taxi drivers. Disraeli called the London cab “the gondola of London”, and we should think of our taxi drivers as the gondoliers of London—not that they usually sing to us, but they send us merrily along our way with their incisive and well-informed conversation. [Laughter.] Well, I often find that I am in agreement with them—that is why I think their conversation is so well-informed and incisive. We should of course not bear down on them unduly with regulation—although I believe that the regulation that London taxis have to keep hay in their boot is no longer applicable.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Can we have a statement on the surprising news that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been sacked?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Leader of the House for last week’s debate on the persecution of Christians. As a follow-up to one of the issues raised in that debate, can we have a ministerial statement on the recommendations to the British Government outlined in the report on the persecution of religious minorities in Pakistan by the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by commending the hon. Gentleman for the excellent and consistent work he does to raise the issue of persecuted Christians and ensure that they have a voice in this House? I also commend him for securing the debate last week, which came about not at my whim but because so many Members wanted it. The Government are genuinely concerned about continuing reports of abuses against members of religious minorities in Pakistan and condemn in the strongest terms the persecution of all minorities, including the targeting of innocent people because of their beliefs. We urge the Government of Pakistan to guarantee the fundamental rights of all their citizens, and we regularly raise concerns about the protection of minority communities, including religious minorities and Christian minorities, with the Pakistani Government at senior level.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
As today is World Radio Day, will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the contribution that local radio stations make to people’s lives in communities up and down the country, in particular through huge charity campaigns? There has been a recent focus on mental health, with 500 commercial radio stations coming together with the BBC to broadcast a simultaneous campaign.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I congratulate my hon. Friend on becoming the chairman of the APPG on commercial radio. It is marvellous that today is World Radio Day, although “World Wireless Day” is more alliterative, so let us rename it that. Community radio is so important. It not only brings local news to people but encourages and helps them, builds a sense of community and gives training to future journalists. We must cherish it, along with other radio, and if I may put in a word for the continuation for ever of “Test Match Special”, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will do so.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Figures published in The Herald this week show that free cash machines are disappearing at an alarming rate from communities across Scotland, with more than £10 million spent on cash machine charges last year. Can we have a debate in Government time on the growing number of people paying for the privilege of accessing their own money?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That issue comes up in terms of both cash machines and bank branches. I see the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who may want to ask a question on a similar subject which he has raised with me before. I have arranged for meetings to take place with Ministers, and I am happy to continue to do so. It is ultimately a commercial decision for the banks, but customers should encourage them to provide a basic level of service.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Leader of the House anticipates my question. I thank him for enabling a constructive meeting with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury about bank closures, and my researcher, Emma Camp, wants to express her thanks too. Is it not time we had a debate in this place about bank closures?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I know that the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee does not want me to say this, but I am afraid I will say it anyway. I think there is such demand for such a debate that, when the Backbench Business Committee is set up, there will be an application from Members across the House for one. If I were still on the Back Benches, it would have my support.
Bill Presented
Medicines and Medical Devices Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Matt Hancock, supported by the Prime Minister, Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Andrea Leadsom, Secretary Theresa Villiers and Jo Churchill, presented a Bill to confer power to amend or supplement the law relating to human medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices; make provision about the enforcement of regulations, and the protection of health and safety, in relation to medical devices; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Monday 24 February, and to be printed (Bill 90) with explanatory notes (Bill 90-EN).
February Adjournment
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I would like to raise three issues that relate to my constituency. First and foremost, I am hugely excited by the prospect of a new arena in the Brabazon hangar on the former Filton airfield. Bristol is one of the most creative cultural cities in the country. Indeed, there can scarcely be anywhere in the country more famed for its contributions to sport, music, art, theatre and wider culture. That our area does not have a large arena of its own has long been a conspicuous absence in our local offering. I want to pay tribute to YTL Developments, the developer of the 400-acre airfield site. Its proposals will lead to the building of a new arena on the border between Bristol and South Gloucestershire, which will be funded without a penny of taxpayers’ money. YTL’s forecasts predict that the project will create 500 jobs, attract 1.4 million visitors per year and add around £1.5 billion to our local economy.
In reusing the existing Brabazon hangar, instead of building a brand-new arena from scratch, the proposals will save 18,600 tonnes of carbon emissions—the equivalent of 11,200 return flights to New York, so I am told. The innovative designs will mean that the Brabazon arena will be able to host touring bands, concerts and sport events in a single venue. Importantly, the arena will boast excellent transport links, including a brand-new railway station at North Filton, a regular MetroBus service and convenient walking and cycling routes. This project is a fantastic opportunity, and I urge Bristol City councillors to get on with granting the planning permission, because delays will only cause costs to increase. The Labour council’s plans to spend £150 million of taxpayers’ money on an arena at Temple Meads in the middle of Bristol were ill-fated, but there is now a great opportunity at the Brabazon hangar site to have a better facility with better transport links at zero cost to the taxpayer. I suggest that the councillors seize that opportunity with both hands.
The next issue that I would like to raise is transport infrastructure. The Prime Minister highlighted in his statement on Tuesday the upgrade to Bristol East junction, which is progressing well as part of our wider MetroWest suburban railway project. That project will deliver great things for our local area, with phase 1 reopening the Portishead branch rail line. The Severn Beach line will be extended to allow for direct journeys to Westbury and Bath, and that extension is on time to be delivered by 2021. Furthermore, we will see a reopened Henbury line, offering an hourly service to new stations in North Filton, Henbury and Ashley Down, and a new, more frequent half-hourly service between Bristol Parkway and Yate.
Our area is already becoming better connected, and I eagerly anticipate seeing the benefits of £350 million of investment in transport infrastructure over the next 20 years, but there are some issues that need addressing. First, a regular service must be restored to Pilning railway station. We are lucky enough in my constituency to have the Wave, the first inland surfing lake of its kind in England, on the edge of Pilning and Easter Compton. That amazing facility opened recently and will attract thousands of tourists. If we do not want people to drive there, which would put pressure on rural road networks with limited capacity, it would be sensible to ensure that they have a reliable rail service, especially because there is a railway station already on the door step.
Secondly, and linked to the sustainability of the area, a park-and-ride facility at Severn Beach railway station would be greatly beneficial. It would capture a lot of traffic heading towards Bristol and avoid a large number of car journeys being taken. There is suitable land adjacent to the station, and I have made the case for it to be used for a park and ride. That would benefit those travelling towards Bristol from Gloucestershire and Wales, as the station is conveniently located near the A403 and M4, and those commuting towards work in Avonmouth and Severnside, which is a huge growth area for jobs and industry, as it is a 10-minute journey by train from Severn Beach to Avonmouth.
Finally, I would like to focus on the issue of education. Our local schools have faced challenges, but many of them are beginning to improve, thanks to the commitment of parents, hard-working teachers and school staff. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to South Gloucestershire and Stroud College, which was recognised last week for strong performance. Students studying A-levels at SGS College made more progress from their GCSE grades than other learners studying similar subjects across South Gloucestershire and England. I would also like to highlight the excellent work done by Bradley Stoke Community School, which continues to be the best school in South Gloucestershire.
I really enjoy visiting my local schools, and I am always inspired when I see young people eager to learn, teachers and staff striving to provide the best education, and governors and parents who are committed to providing the right supporting environment for that to happen. As someone who did not benefit from a fantastic education and left school at 16 with very few qualifications, I am passionate about social mobility and opportunities.
South Gloucestershire is the lowest-funded education authority in the country. There is no good reason for that, besides the arbitrary whims of a mathematical formula, and the impact of that is clear when we compare our results with those of our geographic and demographic neighbours. While the direction of travel is good, and many schools are improving, it cannot be argued that the lack of funding is not a factor in the underperformance of some schools. I have made a submission to the Chancellor ahead of the Budget arguing for more funding for our schools to assist with some of their capital needs, as many are unable to invest in heating, windows and other necessary maintenance to ensure children are studying in the kind of environment we would expect.
I have been working closely with many schools in south Gloucestershire and pay tribute to the members of staff working diligently to deliver a good education to our children, despite the limitations, in some cases, of the buildings they are operating in. In particular, I would highlight the situation at Patchway Community School, which is a school I have great affection for, as three of my children went there and received a great education before moving on to have great careers. Over a year ago, on a catch-up visit, I was shocked at the state of the buildings and infrastructure: ceilings coming down, holes in the flooring, the whole place giving the impression of decay.
The staff are making an amazing effort to educate the pupils, but the limitations put on them by the shoddy state of the school buildings are extreme. I was really surprised. It still has the original resistant materials workbenches from the ’50s. Children are working with equipment older than I am, not one mile from Rolls-Royce and Airbus, two of the leading technology and engineering companies in the world, and having to skirt around collapsed flooring that has been coned off because there is not the budget to repair it. Windows go unreplaced and staff have been forced to decide whether to replace their ageing heating system or undertake other routine maintenance. It is a choice they should not have to make. Parts of the school flood during periods of heavy rain and the changing rooms for sports are not fit for purpose.
I want every child in south Gloucestershire to feel valued at school, not to dread their daily attendance in a dilapidated, dismal and decaying place where the day-to-day experience must be disheartening at times. I have engaged with Ministers on this issue, and the Schools Minister came to visit the school. To date, we have not had much success, whether through increased funding or other help to address these important issues, but rest assured I will continue to campaign until schools in my area get the funding they need and deserve. In addition, I will continue to meet local companies, particularly in the STEM field, to explore whether there is scope for some support in this regard. The nation is desperately short of engineers and scientists. I represent an area that is the hub of south-west England’s aerospace, technology and defence industries, yet I see children learning metalwork and woodwork on equipment that is older than I am, as I said earlier.
Schools should be places of inspiration and hope that highlight the great possibilities and opportunities of life—going back to the point about social mobility, aspiration and looking beyond one’s circumstances. The staff at Patchway Community School are heroically doing their very best to provide this environment, but it must be very difficult and demoralising when the buildings are falling down around them. I would like to invite the Secretary of State for Education, whoever that will be by the end of the day, to visit the school with me to see what can be done.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), not least because of his contribution about education and social mobility, which gives me the opportunity to plug the fourth university fair I have organised for my constituents in the London Borough of Harrow. It will take place on Monday 2 March from 3 pm to 6 pm at the excellent Whitmore High School in my constituency. Every student and parent in the borough thinking about university is extremely welcome to attend. All the leading universities will be there. There will also be options for working abroad. I pay tribute to those universities, including the Oxbridge pair, that will be attending the fair and which, as a result of the success of the previous three fairs, have now stationed a member of staff in the school to work with staff to encourage applications to Russell Group universities and to continue the broader job of trying to increase aspiration among students in my constituency. It is extremely welcome.
I want to concentrate my remarks on the national health service in Harrow and north-west London more generally. Health Ministers will be aware of the collapse, after seven years, of the Shaping a Healthier Future programme, which was designed to plan the future of the NHS across the eight clinical commissioning group areas of north-west London. It originally envisaged the closure of four accident and emergency departments, two of which did take place, but then campaigns, led not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), led to the successful defeat of the proposals to close his A&E department. That, coupled with Treasury concerns about the financing and population estimates, led last June to the Department of Health and Social Care formally cancelling the programme. On the surface, that was a good thing, because it helped to secure another two A&E departments in north-west London, and, at least for my constituents who rely on the A&E department at Northwick Park Hospital, it means there will not be even more pressure on our hospital.
As yet, however, there has not been any replacement strategy for the future of health services in north-west London, which is a particular concern for the future of Northwick Park Hospital, which has a £140 million backlog of essential maintenance, according to a written parliamentary answer from the Department of Health and Social Care; has been starved of substantial investment of late and is certainly short of intensive therapy unit beds; and has not been able to achieve its four-hour A&E target since August 2014. In that time, my partner has managed to have two children and Brad Pitt got married to and divorced from Angelina Jolie, which gives the House a sense of just how long it has been since the A&E department was able to provide a service that meets the key NHS targets.
That is not to decry the talents and dedication of the staff who work at Northwick Park Hospital. I have had to use the paediatric A&E department facilities many times, and the staff there are amazing—that view is widely shared in my constituency—but there is no clarity about the future of the hospital. That is brought into stark focus by the fact that the trust that runs the hospital is set to have one of the biggest deficits in the NHS. It is projected to be £92 million by the end of this financial year. It must be one of the first times in the history of the NHS that a hospital has approached the end of the financial year with close to a £100 million deficit. It raises the question: what is the future in terms of capital investment and funding for Northwick Park Hospital, given the wider problems in the NHS economy in north-west London? The Ealing, Brent and Harrow CCGs, in particular, are widely expected to have the highest deficits in NHS history by the end of the financial year. There is clearly something significantly wrong with the financing—and the formula on which that financing is based—of the NHS in north-west London. I would be grateful if the Minister conveyed those concerns to the Department and encouraged Ministers to get to grips with the challenges in north-west London, particularly those facing my constituency.
As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) would testify, the future of walk-in services run by local GPs, including the Pinn, Alexandra Avenue and the Belmont health centre was a significant issue at the general election. I am delighted to hear that the last surviving of those three walk-in services, the Pinn, has been saved, albeit it without any extra funding for the CCG. If true, it is genuinely excellent news.
The other two walk-in services at Alexandra Avenue and Belmont serve a more deprived and more economically challenged community than does the Pinn. It would good to hear that there will be funding for walk-in services to be reopened at Alexandra Avenue and Belmont, because without that I fear the pressure on Northwick Park’s accident and emergency department is only going to increase. As the chief executive of Northwick Park made clear to me, the closure particularly of the Alexandra Avenue walk-in centre was being felt very directly both in paediatric A&E and mainstream A&E services.
I should say that I am grateful to the Minister for Health for agreeing to meet me to discuss some of these concerns, but could the Minister on the Front Bench encourage the Department of Health and Social Care to respond? If he could give him a gentle prod to get me a proper briefing, I would be extremely grateful.
I particularly want to raise Mount Vernon cancer centre’s future. Over 1,000 patients from the London Borough of Harrow use Mount Vernon cancer centre annually. Last July, a clinical advisory panel led by Professor Nick Slevin, who is a consultant clinical oncologist at the Christie Hospital, was commissioned to review the quality of services at Mount Vernon cancer centre and to come up with some suggestions for the way forward. It found that the hospital was so dilapidated and short staffed that it could not provide basic elements of treatment.
I understand that it is probably the first time in the NHS’s 71-year history that such a major facility, specialising in what is clearly the country’s second biggest killer disease, has been deemed to pose a risk to patients and been declared unfit for purpose. It was found to be so dilapidated and short staffed that it could not provide basic elements of treatment. Yet if we talk to those who have benefited or who have had relatives who have benefited from the treatment at Mount Vernon Hospital, we find it is a cancer centre that is held in extremely high regard. Again, it is blessed with some remarkably talented doctors and nurses, who have done a tremendous job over the years in saving numerous lives and making a huge difference.
Again, the question is: what is the future of the Mount Vernon cancer centre? Initially, there was a lot of concern, particularly with University College London Hospitals due to take over the running of the cancer centre, that cancer services would move from that site into central London. That does not now appear to be the likely ultimate plan for the cancer centre, but there is no clarity as yet about the cancer centre’s future. It is clear from the review that it does not think, fundamentally, that the cancer centre can continue at the Mount Vernon site. That is creating a lot of concern among those currently undergoing treatment there or those who have benefited from treatment on the site.
Having been operated on at the Mount Vernon site in the dim and distant past when it was an acute hospital, I know the affection in which the hospital is held. As a matter of urgency, I urge NHS England to make sure there is no gap in the attention given to the future of Mount Vernon hospital. It sits in an uneasy place in terms of NHS boundaries, being very close to the boundary that NHS East of England manages, but just within the NHS London region. When UCLH takes over running the facilities on the site next year, apparently in March 2021, NHS East of England will pass over responsibility for working out its long-term future to NHS London. There has to be a concern that there will be some loss of focus on the future of the hospital.
Again, I urge the Minister to brief his colleague the Minister for Health on the concerns about Mount Vernon cancer centre. If it helps to encourage the Minister to take this seriously, Mount Vernon cancer centre serves the constituents of the Prime Minister as well as mine, and I suggest there will be many constituents in Uxbridge and South Ruislip who are very worried about the future of the cancer hospital. On that basis, I look forward to the Minister passing on my concerns.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a pleasure to call Luke Evans to make his maiden speech.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) for his passionate talk about the NHS, something which he will probably find is dear to my heart.
One of the benefits of being one of those new Members who do their maiden speeches later is that you get to learn not only that the Opposition cannot intervene, but that it can be quite difficult for the Chair to intervene, especially when there is no time limit. The temptation is to go for a very long speech, but Members—and indeed you, Madam Deputy Speaker—will be very pleased to know that I actually take my advice from none other than Prince Philip, who once said, “The mind cannot absorb what the buttocks cannot endure.” With that in mind, I am going to keep it nice and short.
Actually, a royal connection is not a bad place for me to start my speech. After all, my seat is Bosworth, and most people know it because of the battle of Bosworth. In August 1485, Henry VII defeated Richard III, bringing to an end the English civil war of the Roses and the Plantagenet dynasty, and ushering in the Tudor era. But my constituency is so much more than a barren battlefield. We produced the Hansom cab—think what Sherlock Holmes went around in. We taught Ada Lovelace—think of the world’s first ever computer programmer. We produce Triumph motorcycles—think Steve McQueen in “The Great Escape”—which are made in Hinckley; and there is much more.
My constituency is beautiful and diverse. It is broadly made up of three distinct areas: across the top we have Markfield, Bagworth and Thornton, which are steeped in mining history; across the middle, we have Twycross, Market Bosworth and some of the smaller villages, which are more rural and farming in nature; and across the bottom, we have Hinckley, Burbage, Earl Shilton and Barwell, which are steeped in hosiery and shoes, and were renowned the world over for their products. Like those industries, times have changed, but the people of Leicestershire learned to adapt and they are innovative. In my constituency, we now have Twycross zoo, Mallory race park and MIRA. For those not familiar with MIRA, it is one of the world-leading research facilities for automotive technology—driverless cars; electric cars; electric batteries.
Having listening to other Members’ maiden speeches, Madam Deputy Speaker, you may be forgiven for thinking that the world centres around their constituency. Well, I cannot debate that, but one thing I can say with the truest certainty is that the centre of England is actually in my patch—in Fenny Drayton in Bosworth. This was confirmed by the Ordnance Survey in 2013, much to the dismay of the then right hon. Member for Meriden. It is one of the absolute honours to represent the literal heart of our country here in the spiritual heart of our government.
At this point, I would like to pay my respects to and thank my predecessor, who represented Bosworth in Westminster for 33 years—David Tredinnick. From the outside, it may be perceived with a slight irony that I, a GP, was elected, given his interests in alternative medicine. However, from the inside, what we both share—I am in absolute admiration of it—is his innate desire for and pursuit of improving the wellness of the human state. That is something that I want to take with me as I go forward in my career.
As you heard me mention, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a GP, and I have a declaration to make. My wife is a GP, my father is a GP and my mother is a retired nurse. My youngest brother is a GP and his fiancée is a hospital doctor. My middle brother broke the mould—he is a sports and exercise doctor, working for British Olympic swimming and Bath rugby. His wife—you guessed it—is a GP. Needless to say, when we have a Christmas dinner get-together, the conversation is riveting. My mother and father’s dedication to public life was instilled in me, and that is why I am here today. However, I would not be here without the support, dedication, sacrifice and patience of my wife, Charlie, who is in the Gallery today. Thank you.
When people find out that someone is transitioning from being a GP to being a MP, a lot of them ask, “Why would you do that?”—I think my family thinks I am mad. I would answer with two retorts: first, there are lots of similarities between being a good local MP and a good local GP. We have to problem-solve, communicate effectively, distil complex information, and send it up towards the Government and down towards patients. Above all, we must care for the people we want to help and earn their respect. We do that by working hard, and I pledge to work tirelessly for the people of Bosworth. The only difference is that when a GP’s consultation is over, they do not say to the patient, “Can you now vote for me?”—that is something I must get used to.
The second and probably more corny retort is that I want to make things better. Since being elected in December, I have spent the past few weeks fighting for the people of Hinckley and Bosworth. I have met Local Government Ministers to lobby for fairer funding for Leicestershire, and I met the Minister responsible for roads to ask for improvements to the A5. I have questioned Ministers from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about ensuring that we improve our broadband and mobile phone signals. I met the Transport Secretary and asked him to reopen the Ivanhoe line. I have joined the Health Committee, in the hope that I can use some of my professional experience to be a critical friend of Government, and help to improve the health of not only my constituents in Hinckley and Bosworth, but hopefully the nation. I will take those responsibilities forward and work tirelessly to deliver on them over the coming years.
The final question that I get asked—many new Members will find this—is about what I want to change, which I find really strange. I do not want to change the world; I want to solve the world. There are many problems up and down the country—indeed, across the globe—and I think we solve them by empowering people. If healthcare has taught me one thing, it is: help those who can’t, and empower those who can. I want to be part of a body that helps to bring forward legislation that gives people the tools to help themselves and their communities. That is done by not only protecting people’s rights, but giving them responsibilities. After all, we cannot escape the responsibilities of tomorrow by evading them today. That good motto works at many different levels, be it personal—the choices people make about what they eat, whether they exercise and where they spend their money—for organisations regarding how they hire and look after their staff, and from where they source their materials, or at Government level regarding how to deal with debt and the deficit, trade, and climate change.
As the new Member of Parliament for Bosworth, I will fight for the rights of my constituents. I will fulfil my responsibilities to them to the best of my ability, and I will drive the Government to empower the country, and its citizens, to make a better world.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) on his excellent peroration, and I wish him all the best in his career and in representing his constituents. I will also draw on some of his words about empowerment and choice, and I hope that as a member of the Health Committee, he will enjoy introducing new ideas and best practice from his recent experience as a GP.
The issue I wish to raise is also health-related. Last weekend in my constituency, some protesters assembled outside the British Pregnancy Advisory Service at Stroud Green, intent on disrupting the clinic’s work and intimidating service users who were attending it. This issue is not new to the House. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) has raised it on a number of occasions, imploring the Health Secretary to take more action and create buffer zones around clinics so that women who have to make choices at what is often a stressful time in their lives are able to make those choices without experiencing harassment or degradation.
I was disappointed to see those protests in my constituency. As I follow the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Bosworth, I am sure that we all agree that choice is crucial in this debate, and that women’s rights are human rights. The right for women to do what they choose with their own bodies is an important principle, and I have always stood up for that most basic of human rights.
The protests outside clinics that have been popping up in various constituencies can turn nasty, and I implore the Minister to seek advice from those senior to him about what can be done. As we know from the speech we have just heard, some patients need to make choices at various points in their lives. Women in particular should be supported at a difficult time, not bombarded by protesters who surround clinics, accuse service users of murder, and display graphic images that should not be tolerated while women are taking such a significant step in their lives. Turning a blind eye to such intimidatory tactics is not some- thing that any Member of the House should encourage.
I am grateful to my local authority, Haringey Council, for its sympathetic approach to this issue when it appeared suddenly last weekend, as well as to our excellent borough commander. They immediately passed the issue to local community police officers, who are able to deal with issues of community cohesion that can arise quickly in a matter of hours. I hope I will gain the Government’s support on this. We know that local authorities are hamstrung. The only legal tool currently available is the public spaces protection order, which is not really appropriate for this sort of issue, as a high threshold must be met to obtain a buffer zone.
I understand that such protests are a frequent occurrence. According to experts, over the past 18 months, 44 clinics across the UK have experienced some form of protest activity, including a number of GP surgeries. The hon. Member for Bosworth will know that a protest outside a GP’s surgery could be particularly negative at a time when, as he said, it is important to empower a patient to make a decision. However, only a handful of those protests would meet the threshold for a PSPO.
Given that we are in the third decade of the 21st century, I ask for the law to be updated to protect women who choose to exercise their right to access pregnancy advice services, and in what they choose to do with their bodies. Will the Minister speak to the Home Secretary about the need for legislation to decriminalise abortion and to provide for buffer zones around registered clinics, with proper enforcement measures if those zones are breached?
I will conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I know that lots of Members wish to speak. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton has already led calls on this issue in the House, and she has long been a champion for buffer zones. I know that the issue is on the Government’s mind—together with a number of other pressing matters—and if it is dealt with quickly, it might lead to a calmer situation. We know that arrangements are in place abroad to prevent disruptive and intimidating protesters from getting near clinics and pressuring women who are already under a great deal of stress and pressure.
Some may argue that buffer zones place a limit on free speech—we could have a debate about that. There is nothing to stop such debates taking place in a calm and measured way, and Members on both sides of the House will have different views. Nevertheless, we can demonstrate our ability to have calm discussions in this House about issues on which we disagree, and we do not need to shout at service users at critical times, show distressing images, or call people murderers outside a perfectly reasonable and well-established clinic.
Finally, may I beg the Minister a third time to take this issue up with the Home Secretary? Providing buffer zones would achieve protection and dignity for women while they make what is often the biggest or most difficult decision of their lives. We cannot let the protests continue and we cannot afford more delay.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish you a lovely break next week.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a pleasure to call Sarah Atherton to make her maiden speech.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am the first ever Conservative MP for Wrexham and I am Wrexham’s first female MP. I stand humbled and privileged to serve every constituent, regardless of how they voted. The people of Wrexham are strong and proud, and they were affronted by the prospect of their democratic will being overruled. I have fulfilled my promise to the people of Wrexham and we have left the European Union.
Wrexham is a town some 6 miles from the English border and a gateway both to north-west England and beautiful Snowdonia. Inextricably linked to England for work and play, we are still fiercely and proudly Welsh. We in Wrexham illustrate all that is rich in our Union. I am very typical of someone living in north-east Wales. My father is from Chester and my mother is from Caernarfon. The walls of Chester did nothing to keep out the Welsh women. [Laughter.]
My mother came from a large humble “covie” family, where the women are matriarchs, resilient and strong. Indeed, Shakespeare was no stranger to the determination and the take-no-prisoners attitude of Welsh women, but I will let you read “Henry IV, part 1” for further information. The women of my mother’s generation were tasked with looking after the family and making ends meet. She never heard English until she attended school. How proud all the family are now, as one of them rises in this Chamber as the first ever female Conservative MP for Wales. I think they have even forgiven me for being a Tory. [Laughter.] But that goes to show how amazing this country of ours is and what we can offer to people when they put in hard work, commitment and sacrifice. We must ensure that all those opportunities are maintained and enhanced for our future generations.
Wrexham has a long history of welcoming people into the town. In world war two, we had an influx of Polish servicemen who integrated and settled. There is a large Polish community in Wrexham and a smaller, yet significant Portuguese community. They have woven themselves into the fabric of Wrexham, adding to the diversity and culture of our one nation.
For those who have not been to Wrexham, it is a hidden gem of a market town founded on mining, brewing, football and the military. Sadly, Wrexham claims the second largest mining disaster in Wales. In 1934, an explosion killed 266 men in the Gresford colliery. All but 11 remain buried beneath our feet as a lasting reminder of our industrial heritage. So many men died on that day, as they had changed their shifts to watch Wrexham play Tranmere Rovers. Indeed, as a student nurse back in 1990, I nursed an old man on a medical ward at the local Wrexham Maelor Hospital. His body was covered in small blue scars. He told me that he had been dragged out of the pit that day and was one of the few who survived. It was poignant that, when I visited him at home in Gwersyllt, the same coal that almost killed him was keeping his house warm and water hot.
The mines have since closed, but the resilience and adaptability of the people of Wrexham have meant that other industries and business have filled the void. The people have risen to the challenge. These are the same people who voted me in and I thank them for their faith in me. Indeed, during the election campaign the shift in the political landscape was seismic. The Daily Mail reporter was somewhat surprised to find me and two former Ministers having a swift post-campaigning pint in the LLay Miners Welfare Institute, having just left the opposition in a rather upmarket coffee shop.
As Members have heard, Wrexham’s passion for football goes back a long way and Wrexham Association football club is arguably the oldest in Wales. The Football Association of Wales was founded in Wrexham and I was pleased to see the recent opening of Colliers Park, the national football development centre for Wales, symbolically located on the site of the Gresford colliery pithead. I would like to highlight the good work done by Gresford Athletic football club and Brickfield Rangers football club, including their work in ensuring football is accessible to all, including our young people.
In 1689, the Royal Welch Fusiliers was raised, recruiting from across north Wales. It has a long association with Wrexham’s Hightown barracks. Sadly, this has all changed, but the connection with Wrexham and the Welch Fusiliers remains strong. Madam Deputy Speaker, I stand in the House as the only female MP who has served in the regular Army. It goes without saying that I will do all I can to support our military personnel, veterans and all their families.
Many of us have laid claim to a few firsts. In 1860, my constituency had over 19 breweries in the town. We obviously brew the best beer. Wrexham Lager began in 1882 and the lager is still brewed today. I, too, once dabbled in commercial brewing. I was a brewster—a female brewer. Those who follow me on social media will know that I appreciate a pint of real ale or two and I absolutely value the role pubs play in supporting our communities.
I pay tribute to Ian Lucas, the previous Member for Wrexham, who served the people of Wrexham for 18 years and was a good constituency Member of Parliament. Despite our political differences, Ian and I do have one thing in common: we both served on Gresford Community Council. This is why I value the role of our community councils and councillors in making our communities a better place to live.
Employment opportunities in Wrexham are relatively good. It is served by large businesses such as IPSEN, Moneypenny, DTCC, JCB and Kellogg’s, and we are within commuting distance of Airbus and Toyota. Wrexham is home to the second largest trading estate in the UK, directly employing about 12,000 people. With hopes of expansion comes the offer of further employment opportunities.
It was clear to me during the general election campaign that the residents of Wrexham feel let down by the Welsh Labour Government. The health service is our main concern; a health service directly managed by Labour from Cardiff. Almost daily, I hear heartbreaking narratives from constituents about their disempowerment and suffering. I am listening. As one of seven Conservative MPs across north Wales, we are all listening and we are all looking at what we can do to influence the Welsh Labour Government.
Wrexham has not escaped the problems faced by many towns across the country, but there are now positive plans afoot for regeneration. I have met so many enterprising traders, butchers, bakers and restaurateurs, and I shall be meeting many more. They are the seedcorn of our prosperity. I will do all I can to work with all who seek the success of Wrexham, always seeking to ensure that the people’s voice is heard.
There is renewed optimism in Wrexham, bringing with it the hope that missed opportunities will now be realised. I have lost count of the amount of times people have stopped their car or stopped me in the street, shaken my hand and said, “I’d hoped this day would come.” Wrexham has indeed turned blue and I will prove to my constituents that they have made the right choice. Diolch yn fawr, bobl Wrecsam. Diolch am eich cefnogaeth.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the very assured maiden speeches of the hon. Members for Bosworth (Dr Evans) and for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton). I wish them well. As a fellow Welsh woman MP, may I say to the hon. Member for Wrexham that I very much look forward to her contribution to the annual St David’s Day Welsh debate, which will be held after recess? I am also sure that the all-party beer group will be extremely interested to hear the views of a brewster.
The headlines this week have been understandably dominated by the Government’s decision to move ahead with HS2. This will present not only new opportunities, but significant challenges for the Government in seeking to address the imbalance between the economies of the nations and regions of the UK. I will begin with the opportunities that have arisen, particularly as an hon. Member for a constituency and a city that produces steel and trains.
As Ministers will be aware, phases 1 and 2 of the HS2 project combined will require 2 million tonnes of steel, including for tracks, train components, bridges, tunnels, gantries, wire and more. That means there will be huge procurement opportunities for steel producers across the UK, including in south Wales. I hope that the Government will act to ensure that high-quality UK steel products are used for HS2 wherever possible. It is crucial that Ministers use this opportunity to give our steel industry the vote of confidence that it needs and deserves in extremely challenging times. I will re-emphasise that point to the Government with the members of the all-party group on steel, which I co-chair with the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft).
I also urge Ministers to look to Newport-based train builders CAF Rail UK to produce the trains that are needed for this major infrastructure project. Train production has been up and running at the site at Llanwern since 2018. I have been fortunate enough to visit the factory to see some of the exceptional units being built for West Midlands trains and Northern. The company has received great support and investment from the Welsh Labour Government and already employs a skilled workforce of around 250 people, which is set to grow to 300 in the near future. CAF has the potential and the capacity to produce trains that are at the cutting edge of modern rail technology and offer travel speeds of over 360 km an hour. That makes CAF a perfect fit for HS2, and winning the contract for this major project would be a real boost to our local economy, which has been hit hard recently by the sad news of job losses at Orb, Liberty, EnerSys and Caldicot Tinmasters.
HS2 provides new opportunities to be grasped and I will continue to raise the points that I have made today with Ministers over the weeks and months ahead. However, it is also important to highlight, as Wales’s First Minister Mark Drakeford rightly did this week, that the announcement to proceed with HS2 brings the Tory Government’s historical under-investment in Welsh rail infrastructure into sharp and unflattering focus. Wales accounts for 11% of the UK rail network, yet since 2010, we have received only 2% of rail enhancement spending. In the meantime, the UK Government have cancelled electrification to Swansea and blocked the Welsh Government from providing much needed additional cross-border services that would benefit my constituents who commute from Newport and Severn Tunnel Junction to Bristol. That disparity in investment needs to be addressed urgently if the Prime Minister’s pledge to “level up” the nations and regions of the UK is to be seen as anything other than grandstanding bluster. Wales has been the forgotten nation on rail infrastructure spending and this must end. We also need a new station for Magor and Undy and I pay tribute to the fabulous Magor rail group for its fantastic campaign. I hope that that progresses shortly.
In this end-of-term Adjournment debate, I will also touch on some other issues affecting my constituents. The system of claiming benefits through the special rules for terminal illnesses is still completely unfit for purpose. As Members across the House may be aware, those living with debilitating terminal conditions such as motor neurone disease still have to prove that they have a life expectancy of six months to access benefits. In the case of an unpredictable condition such as MND, that is almost impossible and it forces vulnerable people to spend the last months of their lives filling in lengthy forms, attending assessments, meeting work coaches and waiting months for payments. Equally degrading and cruel is the three-year benefit award, which means that anyone who lives with a condition like MND for over three years loses their benefits. That means that people who are extremely ill—in some cases, completely paralysed or unable to speak—are receiving letters telling them that their benefits are being stopped unless they make a new claim. We have to ask ourselves if this is the sort of country that we want to live in.
In July last year, the Government announced a review of the benefits system to support people who are terminally ill. Six months later, there is little sign of progress, other than the launch of a survey for clinicians and a claimants’ roundtable. The disruption of a general election may have played a part in the delay, but it is still taking far too long. We owe it to them, their families and everyone living with such awful diseases to reform a benefits system that is currently insulting and inhumane. The former Member for Bridgend, Madeleine Moon, did excellent work on this issue in the last Parliament and I intend to pursue it in this one.
I have also been contacted by constituents about the roll-out of the IR35 off-payroll tax. As hon. Members know, there are huge concerns about what that could mean for contractors around the country. Thousands of workers will be unfairly taxed as employees with no employment benefits, including sickness pay, holiday pay and maternity or paternity rights. During the general election, the then Chancellor promised a review of the IR35 legislation, but instead the Government have decided to go ahead with the off-payroll tax and have announced only a consultation on the implementation of the reforms. Just yesterday, contractors were in Parliament in numbers to protest and lobby. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) , said in reply to a Treasury question that I asked this week that he was not aware of big companies making blanket decisions on IR35—yet I say to him that my Twitter feed says otherwise. Contractors rightly feel that the Government are not engaging with them about how they will be affected by these changes. Ministers need to listen now, which means pausing the process and working with the industry to undertake a proper review.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to take part in this debate. Like other honourable Welsh Members, I look forward to taking part in another debate in about two weeks’ time, and I wish everyone a productive recess.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a pleasure to call Angela Richardson to make her maiden speech.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to give my maiden speech in this general debate. I start by thanking the Speaker, the Deputies, including yourself, and the Speaker’s Office for the excellent advice, care and concern that has been shown to new Members. It is greatly appreciated.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and to have heard the wonderful maiden speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth (Dr Evans) and for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton)—I have thoroughly enjoyed listening to all the maiden speeches from this intake so far.
I am delighted to be a Member of this Parliament, which is so wonderfully diverse and representative of the communities we serve. I would like to thank the Conservative Women’s Organisation, Women2Win, and the cross-party 50:50 campaign for the investment that they made in me and for encouraging women to stand in public life.
My predecessor in Guildford, the right hon. Anne Milton, started her political journey as a borough councillor in nearby Reigate and Banstead. With her experience as an NHS nurse of 25 years and genuine warmth of character, she was close to our community and understood local people and their concerns. Anne always acted with principle and did what she believed was right both for her constituents and in the national interest.
In Government, Anne was an effective Minister in the Department of Health and later a Government Whip—indeed, she was the first Conservative woman to hold the position of Deputy Chief Whip, where she introduced better access to physical and mental health provision as well as pioneering the induction programme for new Members, which we in this intake have all benefited from. Anne Milton’s most recent post in Government was as Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills. I look forward to continuing to make the case for the value of apprenticeships, not least as someone who did not go to university but was able to learn and earn. I can see the enormous potential of apprenticeships as we invest in our young people as part of our future global Britain.
I have the wonderful privilege of representing a constituency that I believe encapsulates its name in so many ways. Guildford, or “Golden Ford”, is so named because it was the natural shallow crossing point of the River Wey, where the river bed shone with golden sand. The North Downs way is a footpath that stretches through Surrey, including the Hog’s Back and the centre of Guildford, past the ancient castle built shortly after the Norman conquest in 1066. It provides stunning views—in fact, you do not have to go far from the centre of Guildford to enjoy a view, especially of our iconic cathedral, which sits proudly on the skyline.
Beyond the town, there are many beautiful villages in the Guildford constituency, with idyllic cricket greens and friendly pubs, many of which I managed to give good custom to during the general election as a well-earned break from knocking on doors. I have been proud to call the village of Ewhurst my home for the last decade and serve as a local councillor in the neighbouring community of Cranleigh, which still competes for the title of England’s largest village.
There are hundreds of charities registered in Guildford, and scores more in the wider constituency. It is a kind-hearted, philanthropic place, and the borough council works extremely well in partnership with those charities, helping with all sorts of issues from rough sleeping to young carers. The council also has a fantastic ASPIRE programme to promote health and wellbeing. Homelessness and rough sleeping are high on my list of priorities, and I look forward to continuing to work with the council, and with charities such as Guildford Action, to ensure that the additional funding announced by the Government in December is put to good use. I will work both on a cross-party basis and with the Government to tackle those issues as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness here in Westminster.
Community is at the heart of this one nation Conservative Government’s agenda, and Guildford is uniquely placed to forge golden opportunities in linking the fantastic University of Surrey, Surrey Sports Park, the law college, Surrey Research Park, our entrepreneurs, our computer gaming industry and our leading 5G innovation, job creation and prosperity with our cultural gems of the performing arts and our beautiful cobbled high street, with its famous retail offering of shops, cafes and restaurants.
However, the economic revenue produced by Guildford needs to be nourished with inward investment of skill, talent and funding. I will be seeking Government investment in infrastructure. It is time for a masterplan for Guildford town centre, and bold innovation to reduce traffic with green technology, road improvements, and a re-purposing of the old Cranleigh to Guildford Rail line to ease congestion on the A281. We know that a vibrant local community is more than its industry; it is about its services, its schools and its hospitals.
I am delighted to have Royal Surrey County Hospital in my constituency. Our three children were born there. The accident and emergency department looked after me during a difficult second-trimester miscarriage, and it was an NHS consultant at the hospital who diagnosed our son with autism and offered support. I was proud that the Prime Minister put our NHS at the front and centre of the general election campaign, and I give heartfelt thanks to all our hard-working NHS staff. I look forward to continuing to work on the provision of better car parking at the hospital for both staff and patients, and endeavouring to link the hospital with Onslow Park and Ride.
Let me say, as a proud immigrant to this country from New Zealand who ventured well beyond the famous antipodean settlements of Earl’s Court and Shepherd’s Bush, that community is something that I have had to invest in and build over the last two decades. The people of Guildford have been so welcoming to me, and through my work as their representative I hope to repay their trust.
Being the Member of Parliament for Guildford is the honour of my life, and it would not be possible without the steadfast support of my husband Jeremy, who is in the Gallery today. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I also pay tribute to my parents, who are watching in New Zealand? My mother instilled in me a lifelong love of learning, and my father is immensely practical with a fine sense of humour. That upbringing will, I trust, stand me in good stead in this place, as we combine philosophical principles with pragmatism, meet our country where it is today, and work together to forge its bright future.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Members for Bosworth (Dr Evans), for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and for Guildford (Angela Richardson) on their eloquent and passionate speeches. They all have big shoes to fill, but I am sure that they will do so with integrity and compassion. Let me say to the hon. Member for Wrexham that while I cannot profess to share her love of real ale, if she decides to diversify into gin I shall be more than happy to offer myself as a sampler.
Today I wish to raise the issue of charity lottery reform. Many Members will be familiar with the people’s postcode lottery, the local hospice lottery and the health lottery, but in fact there are 400 charity lotteries operating across Britain, which demonstrates just how crucial this form of fundraising is to the charity sector. The income generated from those lotteries enables charities to fulfil their purpose of helping and supporting many communities and causes across Britain. In my own constituency, charities such as Forest School Swansea Neath Port Talbot and Friends of Primrose Park rely heavily on lotteries.
However, for years these charities have been operating under out-of-date legislation, which is hampering fund raising. Sales limits have a detrimental impact on both the charities and those who rely on the services that they offer. Sadly, it is the smaller local charities that are suffering the most. Ministers should already be aware of the nfpSynergy report “Small Change: How charity lottery limits impact on small charities”, which I helped to launch last year. Alarmingly, the report shows that local charities have lost out on a staggering £45 million of funding, and that, shockingly, only three in 10 applications from small charities could be awarded over two years. I was appalled to learn that as many as five small charities in my constituency had fallen victim to these sales limits, but, unsurprisingly, the report reveals that Swansea East is not alone. Virtually every constituency has been affected, and I urge all Members to read the report to see for themselves how many amazing charities in their own constituencies are losing out.
As someone who recognises the necessity for local charities in communities, I find the Government’s lack of urgent action to address charity lottery reform infuriating. I am not suggesting that this is a party-political issue; I know that Members across the House are as tired and riled about it as I am. However, I must give credit where credit is due—although it is painful! Last month the Government did introduce legislation to update the limits, which should, in theory, be a welcome catalyst for change. I also know that the Gambling Commission is conducting a short technical consultation, which will end on 12 March. I am pleased that charity lottery reform is under the spotlight, but it feels as though the issue has been discussed multiple times before, at length. How many more millions of pounds must charities lose before action is taken?
I hope that Ministers will encourage the Gambling Commission—I frequently challenge the commission on this—not to delay reviewing the responses to the consultation. I propose that a date should be fixed for it to publish the outcomes of its consultation so that reform can at last take place, and I ask Ministers to support me in that proposal.
Finally, in order to offer hope and assurance to the charity sector that change is coming, may I ask Ministers to clarify when exactly they expect the long-awaited charity lottery reform to come into force? Charities and communities alike have waited long enough: it is time to move on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a great pleasure to call Jerome Mayhew to make his maiden speech.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
I feel hugely privileged to be standing here as the Member of Parliament for Broadland. It is an exquisite sliver of breathtaking Norfolk, from Wighton in the north, where my parents were married, to the Halvergate Marshes near Breydon Water in the south-east. It is named after the eponymous Norfolk Broads, a magical combining of flooded medieval peat cuttings interconnected by rivers: the Yare, Bure, Ant, Wensum, and Thurne, to name a few. Together they make up the great harbour of the Broads. The harbourmaster is the Broads Authority, whose key duty rightly remains to maintain navigation. The area is also a wonderful haven for nature, created by Norfolk reed-cutting and marsh grazing over centuries, a harmonious form of traditional husbandry serving both nature and man. Long may those traditional occupations be able to continue to do their good work.
However, to the north of the constituency, some 30 miles from the Broads, “Broadland” is a misnomer. Who would describe Fakenham, with its fine racecourse—but currently, shamefully, no post office—or the pilgrimage village of Walsingham as being in the Broads?
The boundaries of my constituency have been much changed in recent times, but my predecessor, the right hon. Keith Simpson, flexed with them to represent this part of Norfolk for the past 22 years. An academic, Keith describes himself as a
“military historian with an interest in defence and security”.
This political modesty belies his long and distinguished service on some of the key Committees of the House, and most notably his valued membership of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He is a charming and witty after-dinner speaker, and I will struggle to meet his standards and expertise.
Keith was a staunch advocate for Norfolk and for the infrastructure that it deserves. On reading his maiden speech, made back in 1997, I noticed his demand for the dualling of the A47, a key east-west artery for East Anglia. What I did not realise was that this is a tradition of the seat. Looking further back, I discovered that his predecessor, Richard Ryder, made an identical request 37 years ago, in 1983. I now join the club. I am still looking forward to the dualling of the A47, but with this Government’s welcome commitment to investing in our infrastructure, including the dualling of the A47, I am delighted that my eventual successor to the seat of Broadland—I hope in 2055 or thereabouts—will have something else to talk about.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), in his moving maiden speech, evoked the slower pace of life associated with our part of the world, which is epitomised, in his mind, by the village of Sloely. Well, once he has tired of Sloely, I invite him gently to join me in Little Snoring, or even in Great Snoring. But to talk of modern Norfolk in such terms is to ignore the dynamic businesses that thrive there, particularly in the farming, agri-science and green energy sectors. As a rural-based businessman myself, I know the desperate need for improved mobile phone coverage and broadband connectivity to allow the businesses of Broadland to thrive. That is why I wholeheartedly welcome the shared rural network agreement to provide 95% of geographical coverage by 2025, and I am already working with Mobile UK and Norfolk County Council to ensure that Norfolk is in the first phase of this roll-out. I also eagerly await the Government’s 1 gigabit broadband. Entrepreneurialism is alive and well in Broadland, and business there could have the best of both worlds—unrivalled quality of life, together with great connectivity—but we need the tools to do the job.
I join this Parliament in what I believe to be an era-defining moment. For the last 40 years, the relative importance of this place has slowly diminished as more powers were gradually ceded to the EU in its founding quest for ever greater political union. Is it a coincidence that, over the same period, the reputation of this House suffered commensurate decline? As the power of this place to effect meaningful change in the lives of our constituents has diminished, so too has its reputation fallen. I believe that Brexit provides us with the opportunity to change all that. If the decision over Brexit has taught us anything, it is surely that this country does not like to be governed by bodies that it cannot vote out. The people took the lead away from the political class and taught us all a lesson, and actually, it was a lesson in democracy. That lesson has profoundly changed my political thinking. We have been re-taught that democratic accountability is needed in the decisions of state.
That lesson does not just apply to international bodies. The European years also marked the proliferation of quangos, set up to be independent of politics in their delivery of key areas of national government. But what does independence mean? It means an organisation that is untrammelled by political pressures, and yet political pressure is the evidence of a democratic system at work. As we accelerate our already impressive response to the climate and environmental challenges that we face, we will be requiring huge changes to be made to the lives of all our constituents. Without the reform of quangos to bring them back within the structures of democratic government, I fear that we may be sowing the seeds of the next Brexit-style revolt when we can all least afford it.
To be clear, I do not want to stymie our effective environmental and climate response. I want to do the opposite, but I invite the House to look forward. As our new and necessary policies begin to bite, with the huge changes to everyday life that they will entail, not everyone will be happy. The absence of democratic pressure valves in the implementation of policy will leave us all vulnerable to a demagogic backlash. If we do not bring the people with us through the implementation of our plans, it will be at our peril. Now is the time to learn the true lesson of Brexit, to embrace democracy once more throughout our national conversation and to restore true accountability to the people, in organisations that are trusted. Perhaps then the people will once more believe that they have the politicians they deserve.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) for his contribution. I have had time since the election to make it my business to introduce myself to many of the new Members, and he and I have had a cup of tea together. The giveaway to his political history is in his name, and we had a good discussion about Northern Ireland, in which he has a deep interest. I know that for a fact, because he told me so. He also told me that he had been involved in political life from an early age. He said that he might not have known exactly what was going on, but he used to go out on the canvass trail with his father and other members of his family. It was really nice to hear his contribution, and I look forward to hearing many more from him. I wish him well in the House. I should also like to thank the hon. Members for Bosworth (Dr Evans), for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and for Guildford (Angela Richardson) for their contributions. We have a wealth of talent in this House among the new intake, and we very much look forward to the contributions that they will make from both sides of the Chamber. We wish them well.
I want to talk about a subject that I asked the Leader of the House about last week—namely, invasive species. I am not talking about the EU when I talk about invasive species; this is not about anyone coming in to take away our fishing in our waters around the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I want to talk about invasive species in relation to mammals, flora and fauna. The topic I have chosen is of great concern to me as a landowner and also as a country sports enthusiast. I live on a farm in Greyabbey in Northern Ireland, and I am very pleased and privileged to do so. The conservation projects that we have on our farm are all designed to ensure that the natural balance is in place and that the flora and fauna—the animals and the mammals that we have—are native. We have planted 3,500 trees and dug two ponds. We keep the hedgerows and we have control of the pests—the magpies and the grey-backed crows. By doing this, we have ensured that the songbirds, particularly the yellowhammers, have come back in some numbers in the past year. This is about the retention of the flora, the bird life and the mammals.
The non-native species are those that have been introduced, either intentionally or unintentionally, outside their natural range. Many of these non-native species live in harmony with our native species, causing no adverse impacts. However, a few non-native species have become known as invasive, as they thrive in our habitats and out-compete our own flora and fauna. It is time to get the balance back in nature and to retain what we already have, rather than changing it in a detrimental way. I am sure that there are few Members who have not been contacted by local landowners—and, increasingly, homeowners—about Japanese knotweed, which has the strength and the ability to shift the very foundations of a home. In the brighter bygone days, local authorities would have taken care of the eradication of this blight. It is now up to landowners to take the necessary steps, although some local authorities will give advice on it. Over the past four or five years, I have had to deal with Japanese knotweed not only in my town of Newtownards, but in the countryside. This destructive plant cost Britain a shocking estimated £200 million in 2018, but it is not the only invasive species of note affecting country life and conservation.
Invasive species such as mink have a negative effect on game management through excessive predation on game birds, which has a knock-on effect on shooting and conservation, and I should declare that I am a member of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and of the Countryside Alliance. I recently read an interesting article on the BBC regarding the danger that invasive species pose to our beautiful countryside and delicately balanced ecosystems. How important it is that we get the balance right.
The mink is native to North America, but it can now be found close to rivers and water sources throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Mink, which are often mistaken for otters, are popular for their thick fur. In the early 1950s, they were introduced into Ireland for fur farming. Over time, some escaped, and others were deliberately released. Inside this beautiful-looking creature lurks an indiscriminate killer of birds, fish and small mammals. They decimate ground-nesting birds and tackle fish as large as themselves. The mink has no natural predator, so the species is thriving to the detriment of our own species.
I know that this is not the responsibility of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who will respond to the debate, but I know that he will pass these matters on to DEFRA and, because this is a devolved matter, to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland and to the Assembly. I call on all those Departments to work hand in hand to embrace the knowledge and resources offered by the local responsible shooting community to assist with the control of not just the mink, but many other species.
In Strangford, we have undertaken a massive project to address the grey squirrel issue and to attempt to ensure that our indigenous red squirrel has a chance at life again in our farmlands and woodlands. At Mount Stewart outside Greyabbey on the Ards peninsula, the National Trust is running a conservation project for red squirrels that is showing remarkable success. Alongside that, there are red squirrel projects at Rosemount in Greyabbey and on the Ballywalter estate—two shooting estates both well known for their contribution to conservation, which again highlights the importance of balance.
I also highlight Ulster Wildlife’s sterling work on the Red Squirrels United project, through which it has set up and co-ordinated a local red squirrel conservation group in North Down. Some 30 active volunteers are controlling grey squirrels in Cairn Wood, Clandeboye, Cultra, Redburn and Killynether to support the few red squirrels that remain, working closely with the Ards Red Squirrel Group to support one another’s efforts. I thank the volunteers for all that they have done and will continue to do. The eradication or removal of the grey squirrel is important to save the other species—not just across Northern Ireland, but the whole United Kingdom—because the pox that it carries simply leaves no option for the two to cohabit.
In addition, there are a number of species associated with our rivers that are of particular conservation importance. For example, there are concentrations of remaining populations of the rare freshwater pearl mussel and the white-clawed crayfish. The freshwater crayfish is commonly found in alkaline streams, rivers and small lakes where levels of calcium carbonate are high, because the crayfish relies on the chemical to build up its exoskeleton. Such conditions are often provided in lakes, which may support large populations of the species. Some snails, such as the marsh snail, can persist during periods of drought under stones and in damp vegetation and are common in turloughs—a unique type of disappearing lake found mostly in limestone areas.
We all know about ash dieback, because no constituency will have been unaffected. The benefits of planting trees as a climate change abatement measure are widely reported, but rarely is there mention of invasive alien tree diseases across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the impact that they have on planting programmes. Over the past seven years, ash dieback disease has swept across the country and may kill between 95% to 99% of our European ash population. As our ash trees die, not only will Ireland’s traditional source of hurling sticks be lost, but the health of our ecosystems will decline, as will our biodiversity and our economy.
We can take steps to stop the disease. Recent research in the UK indicates that H. fraxineus is becoming more virulent and spreading more rapidly, so we need a Government strategy for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Is there anything we can do to limit the rate of spread? Yes, there is, and the Government’s website indicates steps that can be taken around hygiene. Twelve other serious alien tree diseases have arrived in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland but, unlike ash dieback, the consequences are not yet evident. We urgently need a national strategy to build resilience in the environment and to stop diseases at source, but until that is implemented, we must take action at individual, community, and organisational levels to raise awareness and introduce biosecurity and hygiene into all our activities.
As usual with such matters, we are on a timescale, and we should be doing everything in our power to enhance our environment and battle the problems of the modern world. However, it must be acknowledged that biodiversity needs to be monitored, structured and managed, and that requires a UK-wide strategy. The respected RSPB says:
“The introduction of invasive non-native species is the second biggest threat to global biodiversity after habitat loss. Islands and freshwater habitats are particularly vulnerable, and bird species across the world have experienced severe impacts—invasive non-native species have been involved in the extinction of 68 out of the 135 bird species lost in the wild globally over the last 500 years.”
We are blessed with a beautiful nation and some of the loveliest countryside. Every Member who has made their maiden speech today has said how nice their constituency is, which is true, but my constituency is equally as nice. We must take decisions to ensure that we work to keep our nation beautifully balanced for future generations.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you and everyone in the House a peaceful and restful recess next week. You certainly deserve it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It is a great pleasure to call Dr Neil Hudson to make his maiden speech.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
It is a great honour to stand to make my maiden speech as the Member of Parliament for Penrith and The Border. It is a tremendous privilege to be in this House, and I thank my electors for putting their trust in me. The three MPs before me—William Whitelaw, Lord David MacLean, and Rory Stewart—had amazing parliamentary careers, covering roles such as Home Secretary, Chief Whip and International Development Secretary. I pay special tribute to my predecessor, Rory Stewart. When I was selected as the candidate for my seat, Rory reached out to me and was extremely kind and generous with his support, for which I am grateful.
Rory was a tireless champion for Penrith and The Border, famously walking around the entire vast constituency—even that did not tire him out. He helped countless numbers of constituents and campaigned hard for better broadband, overcoming rural isolation, protecting the environment, and flood management, which sadly has been critical again in Cumbria in recent days—my sympathies go out to the people of Appleby at this time. As a Minister, he was incredibly thoughtful, articulate and rational in portfolios such as the environment and prisons and, latterly, as International Development Secretary. As he moves on, I wish him and his family well. By the way, Rory, when you are next in Cumbria, you are welcome to come and kip with me. [Laughter.]
Penrith and The Border has a population of over 82,000 and an area of 3,120 sq km. As such, it is geographically vast and sparsely populated. The constituency contains many diverse and beautiful villages and towns. I will name but a few, with apologies to those that I miss out: Penrith, Wigton, Appleby, Longtown, Brampton, Alston, Kirkby Stephen and Shap. I am also proud to have parts of the original Hadrian’s wall in my constituency, as well as parts of the original “blue wall”.
Agriculture is the lifeblood of the constituency, accounting for about 50% of land use, but there are other industries, too. Tourism is a hugely important sector for our local economy. Indeed, Cumbria has one of the largest tourist economies in the UK. There were 47 million visits to Cumbria in 2018 alone. In addition, there are over 5,700 businesses in Penrith and The Border. Such businesses are absolutely vital to our communities.
Such a vast area has problems with connectivity, be it virtual or real. Whether it is broadband, mobile phone coverage or transport links such as trains and rural buses, communities and people need to be connected and joined together so that people can interact with and access their local services. I will champion these causes.
As the name suggests, my seat goes right up to the Scottish border. I will join hands with my colleagues along and across the border. Working together, we can bring investment and infrastructure to the area through initiatives such as the Borderlands Partnership. I will also passionately stand up with all my heart for the precious Union that is our United Kingdom.
I am a veterinary surgeon by background, and I believe I may be the first vet to be elected to the House of Commons since 1884, when Sir Frederick Fitzwygram was elected as the Member of Parliament for Fareham. The other vets at Westminster have included the late, great Professor Lord Soulsby, who was brought up in Penrith and was the dean of Cambridge Veterinary School, where I trained. Now there is Professor Lord Trees, who sits in another place. All three served as president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, of which I am proud to be a fellow.
So why has this particular vet ventured into politics? My involvement as a veterinary inspector in the 2001 foot and mouth crisis spurred me into wanting to use my background in public service. I am sure Members will recall the dreadful scenes from that crisis—scenes we hope are never repeated. Supervising the culling of many, many animals is sadly emblazoned in my memory. Nationally, over 6 million animals were slaughtered. Cumbria was hit especially hard, with over 1.25 million animals lost. Forty-five per cent. of Cumbria’s farms were subject to culls, and this rose to 70% in the north. The crisis had severe effects on agriculture and the economy, and also on the mental health and welfare of the people who live and work in this area.
As we all know, agriculture is incredibly important to the UK, contributing £9.6 billion to UK economic output in 2018, but it goes much wider than this. We are a nation of animal lovers. Some 40% to 50% of households have a pet and, as an equine vet, of particular relevance to me is the fact that there are over a quarter of a million horses in the UK. Issues in areas such as animal health and welfare, disease surveillance, public health and trade are pivotal, now more than ever, as we enter a crucial time of legislation and common frameworks in these areas.
It is vital that, now we have left the EU, we stand up for our first-class standards of farming and animal welfare as we go on to secure trade deals. Indeed, this will be a great opportunity for the UK to be a beacon to the rest of the world on animal welfare. We can send out the message that if other countries want to trade with us, they need to bring their animal welfare standards up to our level.
Sadly, the veterinary profession is over-represented in mental health issues and the incidence of suicide. I very much welcome the cross-party and, indeed, Government commitment to parity of esteem between mental health and physical health so that people, both young and old, can access the best mental health care in hospital and in the community.
On a lighter note, being a vet in politics has some advantages on the doorstep. As I said, half of households have a pet, frequently a dog. When I am out canvassing and a dog hears a vet knocking at the door, either they run a mile, thinking they are about to get an injection or, worse, have their anal glands emptied—“anal glands” is something you will not read in Hansard every day—or they run towards me. I am reminded of the time a dog did just that and latched on to my leg, not in an aggressive fashion but more in an amorous manner. I looked down and said to the owner, “Well, I think I’ve secured his vote.” To which the owner smiled and replied, “Well, you’ve got mine now, too.”
Finally, I would like to thank some specific people. First, I thank my family and friends for their enduring and steadfast love and support over the years—I could not have done this without you. I also thank Penrith and The Border Conservative association for all its help and support.
I also thank specific Members of this House and another place for their support and encouragement in my journey here. To my right hon. Friends the Members for North Somerset (Dr Fox), for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing), for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) and for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and for Moray (Douglas Ross) and, in another place, Lord McInnes of Kilwinning, thank you so much.
On the other side of the House, I specifically mention the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), whom I was up against as a candidate in 2010. When I was selected as the candidate for Penrith and The Border, he contacted me to wish me well, and he did so again when I arrived here. I feel strongly about that spirit of cross-party working. If someone on the other team has an idea that is good for the country, we should work together to bring it forward for the benefit of everyone. It is in that spirit that I enter this House and hope to continue.
Finally, if you will permit me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will say a final few words about someone you knew well, as he was a constituent of yours. My father, Christopher Hudson, sadly passed away just a few days ago. I have debated whether to say this and, indeed, whether to go ahead with my maiden speech this week, but I know it is what he would have wanted me to do.
My dad, Christopher Hudson, was a professor of obstetrics and gynaecology, and he devoted his life to the service of his patients in the NHS and in Australia, and during periods spent in Nigeria and Pakistan. He notably worked to reduce maternal mortality and postpartum complications in the developing world. He delivered countless babies and saved countless lives through pioneering surgery in this area and, especially, in cancer surgery—those procedures are still making a difference today. In addition, he trained and mentored so many health professionals right up until the end. I am so sorry that he is not here today, but he is at peace now. With all my heart and soul: thank you, mum and dad. God bless you, dad. This one’s for you.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I would also like to pay tribute to Professor Hudson on behalf of the whole community in Epping Forest, where he will be very greatly missed not only for his considerable achievements during a distinguished medical career, but for the good work he did and the charitable causes he helped in our local community. He was unique, and he would be a very proud man today.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow five outstanding maiden speeches by five new hon. Friends, each of whom clearly has a very bright future in this House. They each painted a vivid picture of the delights of their constituency and paid warm and generous tribute to their predecessors—those of us who knew them will remember them fondly and with great affection. I was particularly pleased to hear so many of my hon. Friends refer to the importance of pubs and breweries to their constituencies. Speaking as the chairman of the all-party group on beer, I hope that the new ministerial team at the Treasury were listening to those speeches and will consider that these important industries merit support in proportion to the exceptionally high economic and social contribution that pubs and British beer make to each of our constituencies.
I wish to raise a matter of great concern to many of my constituents. It relates to the issue I raised at business questions today: proposals for development of green-belt land on the edge of the west midlands metropolitan conurbation. South Staffordshire District Council, where the land lies, recently consulted on its spatial housing strategy, as part of its local plan review. The land lies within South Staffordshire, but it borders my constituency, and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb), for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) and for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson).
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be well aware of the beautiful Seven Cornfields, which sits between our constituencies. He will also be aware of the campaigns that many of us have been involved in with the great West Midlands Mayor, Andy Street, for “brownfield first”. I think we need to go even further. Does my hon. Friend agree that more must be done to protect all the green belt in the Black Country?
Mike Wood
I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention, and he is of course absolutely right; this green-belt land, although lying outside our boundaries, is very much part of our communities. For many of our constituents it is their back garden, it is their local environment and it supports local wildlife. It is so important to local quality of life for so many residents in the Black Country. The proposals for development of Ridgehill woods, at Lawnswood and on neighbouring land adjoining my constituency would be particularly harmful for many residents of the towns of Kingswinford, Wordsley and Wall Heath in Dudley South. The local green belt acts as the lungs of the west midlands and helps to protect air quality levels for our communities. Wordsley High Street, where my office is situated, has some of the worst air quality anywhere in the west midlands, and the proposal to build large housing developments on greenfield land barely half a mile down the road from that junction can only make an already terrible problem far, far worse.
Pursuing a policy of developing new housing on green-belt land such as this would also place significant additional pressure on local infrastructure and on already busy local public services, be they local road networks, schools or GPs. As I have said, although the building work would be in South Staffordshire district, the bulk of the impact of this development would lie with my constituents and with communities in Dudley South. Congestion on the A449 and A491 is already extremely heavy during peak times, and the extra housing on the edge of Wordsley and Kingswinford would only make that problem worse. Natural population growth and demographic changes on the western edge of Dudley borough have led to many services being at full capacity already. Again, those pressures will only get worse if there was development on the scale that has been suggested on green-belt land in South Staffordshire
Not only would this development have a negative impact on my constituents and on our communities, but it is unnecessary, as my hon. Friend has mentioned. There is no need to build housing on the green belt around Dudley metropolitan borough, and therefore there is no justification within the current national planning framework for releasing green-belt land in these areas. The substantial work that Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council has done to remediate former industrial sites—work that has been replicated in other local authorities, in the Black Country and in Birmingham—means that we do have sufficient brownfield sites available to meet our housing need in the medium term. Andy Street has also worked across the west midlands conurbation, with the combined authority—all seven local authority leaders, of both major parties—to make many more brownfield sites available for housing. The £450 million midland metro tram extension, from Wednesbury through to Brierley Hill, connecting the western edge of the west midlands to Birmingham city centre and the main line national rail network, brings in yet more former industrial land and makes it suitable and attractive for housing development. So we need to be looking at how we can accelerate this land remediation and make better use of former industrial land, rather than looking at how we build on green-belt land, destroying so much of our natural environment, which, once it is gone, can never be restored.
Questions as to whether this development goes ahead will, of course, be down to South Staffordshire District Council, once the formal planning process is under way, but I ask the Government to reflect upon three very relevant issues during the recess. The first relates to how local communities in urban districts such as Dudley can properly have their views considered when planning decisions are being made in neighbouring areas that adjoin their own communities. Similarly, we should consider how urban councils such as Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council can have a more formal role in that planning process, going beyond the duty to co-operate.
The second issue I ask the Government to consider is how the impact of such development on services and infrastructure can be mitigated. National planning law already recognises that there is an infrastructure cost associated with large housing developments, and that is reflected in community infrastructure levy payments that are made by developers. If a development spans two local planning authorities, the infrastructure levy is split between those two authorities, to reflect the cost. However, the same is not the case where the physical development is in one local authority, but the bulk of the impact lies in a neighbouring planning authority. I ask the Government to reflect on that.
The third point is how we can make even better use of brownfield sites in Dudley, the wider Black Country and across the west midlands. I ask the new Treasury team to give the utmost consideration to the submission that the West Midlands Combined Authority, led by Andy Street, has made for £200 million for an urban transformation fund to allow development on brownfield sites, particularly challenging brownfield sites, that are not currently economically viable for market-based developers but which, with modest gap funding, could be brought back into use, benefiting all our communities and providing the extra housing that is needed, without posing a risk to the green belt.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It is a particular pleasure to call to make her maiden speech Siobhan Baillie.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood)—especially without having had to do the weird Westminster thigh workout that is bobbing up and down for ages to get your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker.
First, I wish to thank the people of Stroud, who put their faith in me. I am particularly proud to be the first ever female MP for Stroud. I am also an optimist. I said on the telly last year that I was the luckiest candidate in the UK, and now I am the luckiest MP. So I thank you all; I do not take this responsibility lightly.
I like the custom of giving credit to our predecessors in maiden speeches. Throughout his long career in politics, David Drew was known for his idealism and his commitment to his constituents. He had one of the longest-running political bromances with my predecessor, Neil Carmichael. They fought each other for nearly 20 years—that is some dedication. I wish David well in whatever he decides to do next.
Anybody who has read Laurie Lee’s “Cider with Rosie” will know of the beauty and charm of Stroud’s five valleys. Please read his work soon if you have not already done so. Historically, the area was made prosperous through an early recognition that the local fast-flowing, clean river water could be used to power cloth mills. You will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not wearing vintage Stroud cloth today; the truth is that I could not find it in animal print. [Laughter.] I am, however, wearing the creation of a young Stroud fashion designer who dedicates her talent to making sustainable fashion, completely without waste. And she does it in baby-bump size, which is very kind.
As my constituency goes beyond the magnificent town of Stroud, the breadth and physical geography and the diversity of human activity found in the valleys and vale just defies simple description. From Sharpness to Stroud, Hardwicke to Horsley, Cranham to Cam, Berkeley to Bisley and Arlingham to Amberley, I am always impressed with people’s ideas and passion. So when people ask me why I am optimistic, I say, “Look at our current creativity, innovation and drive.” It is the people who are the real stars. They are some of the most innovative, hard-working, caring and creative souls I have ever met. Look at the young designers; our schoolchildren, who are leading on environmental change; and the energy packed into every quirky festival, litter-pick and Stroud town in bloom competition.
Look, too, at our businesses: a company founded in Stroud is leading innovations in battery-powered aeroplanes; the Prince of Wales’ Aston Martin and the royal train are fuelled with Stroud biofuel; the fastest ever land rocket is being built in one of our schools; and stunning local wallpaper and fabric designs can be found in homes around the world, including those of the rich and famous.
However, my job is not just to love-bomb Stroud or to talk idly about change. I am in this place to get things done. The people of this great country have given us a mandate; now, we must deliver for them. So I have cobbled together a few key thoughts. From my time as a councillor and having fought for local campaigns, I know that it is often the changes around us in our communities and neighbourhoods that we notice the most. It is often local effort and kindnesses that make the biggest difference to where we live. Therefore, while I welcome the recognition of the importance of place and the investment that is coming into infrastructure, we must not forget the people in that process. As I said before, it is the people who are the real stars.
From my experience on the doorsteps across the Stroud constituency, I know that we must support our high streets. They need investment so that they can be the hub of communities once again. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government saw that for themselves in Stroud during the election—this speech was only correct as drafted and the Chancellor has now changed, but I will not be put off seeking funding for my local high streets by a reshuffle.
We must support our farmers. They are the great custodians of our land. All new legislation should focus on maximising their potential and maximising food production.
We must support our schools and children with special educational needs. They are our future. The new school funding formula is welcome, but we have to correct long-standing issues with funding in Gloucestershire.
We must support new green initiatives and lead the global emergency response. A commitment to the environment runs through every single thing that we do in Stroud, the valleys and vale.
From my experience, working my way up to be a family law solicitor and being before the House today quite against the odds, in many respects, I know that we must support further education. University is great for some, but what about everybody else? Come to see the students at South Gloucestershire and Stroud College: be inspired by them, see what Government funding can do, and realise that we will all benefit from unleashing the potential of lifelong learning.
We must support initiatives that strengthen relationships and early intervention for children. We know that mental health issues are established by the time of the teenage years, and we know about the five pathways to poverty. It is daft simply to throw money at problems for adults without a true preventive programme backing up children.
We must support families going through times of separation. Children get caught in the middle, and couples now frequently litigate without any representation at all. Nobody wants this—not the parents, not the couples, not the judges and not the lawyers. We can and should change that system.
I started by saying that I am an optimist, but of course we face challenges: we live in a world where competition is global; the pace of technological change is accelerating; and climate change threatens our very way of life. Addressing these challenges will require hard work and difficult choices. That is why our constituents sent us here. I look forward to working for all the people of Stroud and I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the House to deliver for this great nation. I, for one, truly believe that the best is yet to come.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) and that powerful maiden speech. I had the pleasure of being teamed up with my hon. Friend when we tramped the streets of Peterborough together during the by-election last June. That election produced the wrong result, but I am glad that the general election produced a better one for my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow). I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud to look after one of my family’s favourite days out: the wetlands centre at Slimbridge, which I believe is in her constituency.
It is also a great pleasure to follow the maiden speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), for Guildford (Angela Richardson), for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and for Bosworth (Dr Evans). I thought that I had missed many of my colleagues’ maiden speeches when I was on paternity leave the other week, but it turns out that I have more than made up for it by hearing some excellent ones in this debate.
I agree with the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) in respect of the items he brought up in his speech. In Buckingham, we are currently also under the threat of a land grab by a neighbouring authority, in our case Labour-run Milton Keynes Council, which wants to expand to a town of 500,000 people. That would involve its coming miles and miles into my constituency—to which, to be very clear, the answer is no.
I wish to raise an issue that is important to my constituents, and it relates to some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South. The issue is the threat of a brand new road to come through the Buckingham constituency and, indeed, to go through the constituencies of many right hon. and hon. Members. The Oxford to Cambridge expressway is not just a new road but a new road that comes with a desire, along the whole route, for a million new homes.
I am no opponent of house building. We need new homes in our country—new homes that people can afford to buy. Indeed, we also need to build more social housing. However, 1 million new homes across the Buckinghamshire countryside in particular is an unacceptable proposition for my constituents. Let us look at some of the themes that surround the building of this road.
There is a great deal of uncertainty. The Highways Agency has come up with what it calls its preferred route, which is named in typical public-sector speak simply corridor B. Corridor B is actually about three quarters of my constituency. To put it into context, my constituency is 335 square miles, so, were this expressway to go ahead, there would be absolutely no certainty for my constituents about exactly the route that it would follow. It would bring with it significant environmental destruction not just to our beautiful countryside but to wildlife, to ancient woodland, and to our biodiversity. Most important, though, is the effect that it would have on people’s lives and on their property. There would be disruption from the construction and the destruction of their property, as farms are taken, homes are taken, and businesses are taken. Indeed, once it is built—if it goes ahead—there would be the impact of noise, the impact on people’s health, the impact on people’s enjoyment of their property, and, I fear to say, in some cases, the impact on people’s mental health.
The road plus the housing development and the green-belt land that would be required would massively increase the risk of flooding, and we are already suffering considerably in Buckinghamshire from an increase in flooding as a result of over-development. It cannot be lost on the House that, at a time when we are trying to reduce carbon output and get to net zero by 2050, building a new motorway is not a sensible step to take.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point. I should, at this point, declare an interest. As well as knowing his constituency incredibly well—beautiful as it is—I represent a council ward in that constituency, and that council ward is in the corridor, as he described it. Does he agree that there are many things wrong with this idea? There is this idea that building a new road will somehow increase productivity, but we all know that the great cities of Oxford and Cambridge are renowned for their contribution to research and science, and, as far as I know, intellectual property does not travel by road. There is the economic case, which is incredibly flimsy, and my hon. Friend referred to the suspiciously round figure of 1 million new homes. However, as I am sure you will agree Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the environmental case that is the most poignant. Sixty miles of new road, with two and a half miles either side of building, does not make environmental sense.
Greg Smith
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, it is always sensible to listen to one’s constituents, and I am delighted that he has raised that point this afternoon. Indeed, there is significant local opposition to this scheme. Aylesbury Vale District Council, on which my hon. Friend sits, and Buckinghamshire County Council have, on a cross-party basis, opposed the expressway scheme. They should be given full credit for refusing to sign the non-disclosure agreements, which were demanded by the Highways Agency to try to stop them from representing their residents effectively. There are also significant resident groups, both along the entire route of the expressway and, indeed, in Buckinghamshire. I am delighted to say that the No Expressway Group and the Buckinghamshire Expressway Action Group will be coming to Parliament on 26 February to ensure that their voices are heard on this matter. Throughout the general election campaign, and since my election to this House, I have received a significant number of representations from constituents on this matter, so it is very much on the minds of my constituents.
I mentioned earlier that my principal objection to the plan is the impact that it will have on people—the loss of their homes and their farms. I represent a largely agricultural economy. It is a rural constituency on which farming is so dependent, and we cannot keep concreting over those fields. Those businesses sustain our farmers and, indeed, grow and rear the food that we need and enjoy.
I do not want to dwell on this point, but the cumulative impact of building HS2, which was given the go-ahead this week, much to the disappointment of my constituents, and of building the expressway would bring abject misery to my constituents. Then there is the destruction of wildlife. The expressway will have a devastating impact on wildlife along the whole route. Mark Vallance of the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust has commented that part of the route would destroy
“one of the most undisturbed and wildlife-rich areas of Buckinghamshire.”
Indeed, let me quote the words on the website of the Wildlife Trust, which are so elegant. It says that what would be destroyed by the expressway are
“stunning wildlife meadows, ancient woodland, hedgerows alive with birds and butterflies, and gentle undulating ridge and furrow fields that have survived since the Middle Ages.”
On the point of homes, I mentioned earlier that I am no opponent of development, but I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South that we should be looking to develop new homes on brownfield sites, not on the green belt, not in the countryside and not on our farmers’ fields. Aylesbury Vale District Council has already been very ambitious in terms of its house building and its local plan. We are talking about some 28,000 new homes, which is a very high number compared with many other district councils covering similar ground. I do feel that Buckinghamshire, particularly the Aylesbury Vale district area, has taken its fair share of new home building, and we should be looking, yes, to the remaining brownfield sites, but also to other places to take their fair share of the new homes. Along the whole arc corridor—the Oxford to Cambridge Arc—some 3,130 hectares of brownfield site have been identified that would be good for house building, and we should look at that first.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) intervened, he mentioned that the economic case is also not right for the expressway. It is projected to cost somewhere between £4 billion and £8 billion. That is an estimate at the start of the scheme, and we know what happens once these schemes start. Indeed, the business case is also very weak, with the benefit-cost ratio at the start of the scheme showing a return between £1.10 and £1.30 per pound spent. I put it to this House that that simply is not good enough.
During the election campaign, I was delighted when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport visited Verney junction in my constituency to discuss this matter. He made a number of pledges and commitments that I want to put on record, as I would very much like to see the Government bring them forward as soon as possible. A priority review of the expressway was promised. He said that he did not think that the case for the expressway stacked up and that we should look at other schemes that could improve east-west travel both by road and by rail. He also talked about cycling through Buckinghamshire instead. In particular, we need to look at improvements to the A41 and the A421—two major A roads that pass through my constituency—to get them moving faster rather than building new roads and, where residents consent to it and where residents want it, we should build all-important bypasses. For example, the residents of the village of Wing in the east of my constituency are very keen to see money brought forward to relieve their village of heavy goods traffic and general traffic as people travel north-south, principally from Aylesbury to Leighton Buzzard and up to Milton Keynes.
I am delighted that the Government have signed off East West Rail. We must ensure that East West Rail happens on time and on budget, and before the final detail is signed off we must keep open the debate for the line to be electrified, rather than running with diesel trains.
In conclusion, the Oxford to Cambridge expressway is the wrong project for my constituency. I can genuinely say that it has virtually no public support in my constituency, or indeed those of other right hon. and hon. Members, so let us have the priority review, stop concreting over Buckinghamshire and look to other projects that can improve the lives of my constituents.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Like colleagues across the House, I have been moved by many of the maiden speeches we have heard so far. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) had me in tears when I watched his, and today we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), whose touching words certainly hit home—I think he did his father extremely proud today.
I also want to say a big thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie). She and I began our political journey together back in February 2017, when we both hoped one day to become Members of Parliament. I am delighted to be on the green Benches with her today. I fully back her campaign for further education and encourage Members across the House to see what she does every Friday to promote that amazing cause, and I encourage them to copy her Twitter posts to ensure that they get out into their constituencies to celebrate what an alternative to university could look like for many people.
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. There is no end of matters that I could raise, although I think the news cycle might take over today. The good news for those on the Treasury Bench—I look forward to meeting the new Chancellor—is that I will limit myself to only one spending request: to improve transport in Stoke-on-Trent, Talke and Kidsgrove. The less good news, for the Treasury and the Department for Transport, is that they might find my long list of asks a bit burdensome.
Stoke-on-Trent has for decades missed out on the transport investment that other areas have seen. Together with my colleagues across north Staffordshire, I want to make sure that we do not lose out again. The Prime Minister has already boosted our confidence by agreeing that if HS2 is to go ahead at all, it must include the Handsacre link. That link is crucial to bringing HS2 services to Stoke-on-Trent, and the very thought of it has been attracting investment into the city. Now that it has been confirmed, HS2 will open up further opportunities for investment, but there will also be challenges in getting the transport system across north Staffordshire into a fit state to take full advantage of the increase in connectivity and profile that being a high-speed rail city will bring.
I confess that north Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent already enjoy very good strategic transport links to the rest of the UK: the M6, A500 and A50 serve the city; the rail journey to London is as little as 1 hour and 30 minutes; and there are four international airports within an hour’s drive—and that is even before HS2 is delivered. Stoke-on-Trent is ideally located to take advantage of and contribute to national economic growth, but—and there is a big but—in order to maximise that contribution, we require major improvements to local infrastructure. We are the gatekeepers to the northern powerhouse, yet far too often Stoke-on-Trent is treated as the ugly duckling in the midlands engine.
Local transport connectivity in north Staffordshire is sadly very poor, especially at rush hour, with heavy dependency on the car. Many people struggle to get around the conurbation, which limits access to employment opportunities. Improved local public transport would support wider development in the area; unlock sites for housing and economic regeneration; and help reduce congestion and tackle air pollution.
Stoke-on-Trent has been confirmed as a recipient of investment from the transforming cities fund, but the exact scale of that investment is yet to be revealed, and I would not want the House to adjourn before I had stated the case for major investment in and around Stoke-on-Trent. The bid to the transforming cities fund is for Stoke station to become the key transport interchange for the whole north Staffordshire conurbation. The proposals are expected to reduce journey times and congestion, create new jobs and improve accessibility and connectivity. The focus is on securing a shift from private vehicles to public transport, with Stoke station as a main transport hub. That is the same model as other successful cities, but it has yet to be realised in Stoke-on-Trent because of the linear and polycentric nature of our city.
We also want to invest in the city’s existing rail infrastructure and make better use of it. The north Staffordshire line would become the major transport corridor for movement within the city. That line, also known as the Crewe to Derby line, links three existing Stoke-on-Trent stations at Longton, Stoke and Longport, together with Kidsgrove in my constituency in the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme.
The transforming cities fund bid includes much-needed improvements to our local stations, and we are ambitious about the potential for seamless public transport from rail to bus. I must add that I have had to write a very angry letter to Network Rail, which has wasted millions of pounds of public money by not making the Access for All upgrades at Kidsgrove station. My predecessor’s predecessor had lobbied for that money, and it was given back in 2015. Network Rail’s failure to deliver those important upgrades means that people with mobility needs, and young mothers and fathers with pushchairs and prams, are now unable to access the station’s entirety, and that is a disgrace. I would like the Department for Transport to work with me to ensure that we hold Network Rail to account on such failure.
The pedestrian experience also needs attention, and I am excited about the possibilities for cycling, particularly in the context of the Prime Minister’s statement earlier this week. There is plenty of capacity for increasing use at Longport station, and if we can improve the pedestrian and cycle journey from Longport, that could boost the local visitor economy substantially. Middleport Pottery, which is again shining on our TV screens as the home of “The Great Pottery Throw Down”, should be a relatively short walk from Longport station, but there are various public spaces that need to be better connected in order to achieve the optimal route. Our ambitions for local rail go beyond enhancing the local survivors of the Beeching cuts. We want to see reversals too.
Once the transforming cities fund has been delivered, it will be even more evident that we need to deliver on the reopening of the Churnet line from Stoke to Leek. My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) has long campaigned for that, and she is joined by all three of Stoke-on-Trent’s MPs. That would mean reopening a station at Milton in my constituency, and ideally one to serve Birches Head Academy on the boundary with Stoke-on-Trent Central. Milton is a truncation of “mill town”, and just as it has sadly lost its mill, it has also lost its place on the railway map. I want to bring it back. Indeed, I would love to see Milton Junction return to the rail map so that local services could also go up towards Biddulph. That would potentially mean restoring rail services to Ford Green, Smallthorne and Chell. That is a very long-term ambition, but I did not come into politics to think small.
An ambition for the Crewe to Derby line is to see the return of a station at Chatterley for Tunstall. That would serve both our historic, traditional coalfield communities and our up-to-the-minute Ceramics Valley enterprise zone and Tunstall Arrow. Sadly, it cannot be a straightforward restoration of the old Chatterley halt, because the line was moved westwards in the 1966 deviation to allow for electrification. But there is a big gap between Kidsgrove and Longport stations, and a new Chatterley for Tunstall station would fill it, catalysing further economic regeneration.
Talking of Kidsgrove, in a little over a decade the entries and exits at Kidsgrove station have boomed, from 50,000 to more like 250,000, and it is imperative that everyone should enjoy the success.
Finally, I want to talk about buses. This could be a speech in itself, but I will restrict myself to repeating the pleas already made in the House by many hon. Friends—including my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon)—for a super-bus scheme in our fine city. Bus use in the Potteries has declined by more than 10% in the last year alone, with over 1 million fewer bus passenger journeys in 2018-19 than in 2017-18. Bus passenger journeys are now 9.3 million, down from over 15 million recorded at the start of the decade. That is while traffic congestion has worsened, with consequential breaches of the World Health Organisation’s pollution limits. New solutions are needed to make buses more attractive, so that they can viably compete with the comfort and cost-effectiveness of the car. We need more routes, better buses and bus shelters that display live information, such as those that are enjoyed in London.
Finally, the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) talked about universal credit and the six-month time limit. As the secretary for the all-party parliamentary group on universal credit, I look forward to working with Members from across the entire House to ensure that we correct what truly is a problem in that system.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow so many excellent maiden speeches.
Following the announcement on HS2, may I once again mention that if HS2 is to have value for my constituents in the Middlewich area, there is a pressing need to reopen Middlewich railway station to passengers? I have spoken about this issue many times since becoming an MP 10 years ago, and the proposal also has the continuing support of many MPs from around the Cheshire area. It has been the subject of a long-running and admirable campaign by Middlewich residents, first under the title of “Middlewich rail link campaign” and now with the name “Mid Cheshire rail link campaign”. It was renamed in recent years to reflect that the proposal is more broadly supported by those further afield in Cheshire. I hope that my account will encourage new colleagues when it comes to transport issues and calls for support for new transport in their areas—persevere!
When I first heard of the Middlewich rail link campaign, I was invited to a meeting in the Boars Head pub in Middlewich. About six train enthusiasts were sat there—all men, I have to say. They told me about their dream of reopening the station in Middlewich—I did think it was a dream. However, after a few years, because of their and others’ determination to continue to campaign, there is now a real prospect that that dream may become a reality. The station is very much needed, as more house building in the region has increased pressure on the roads.
Let me tell the House a little bit of the history of the campaign. In March 2013, I was given a petition of thousands of local signatories calling for the reopening of the station. I was proud to be able to present that petition here, with the support of all the MPs from the surrounding area. The campaign then gathered further strength and, following lobbying to Cheshire East Council, an area was earmarked for the station in the local plan. Subsequently, Ministers—I hesitate to say that they were perhaps worn down by my calls in this place for support—responded by providing a Government-funded feasibility study, the “Mid Cheshire and Middlewich Rail Study Strategic Case Report”, which reported in March 2019. This was—perhaps to the surprise of one or two bureaucrats, shall I say?—both positive and encouraging. I will briefly quote from the report as evidence. It just goes to show that sometimes local people do know what they are talking about, doesn’t it? In somewhat bureaucratic writing—I have tried to pick out parts that are not quite so bureaucratic—the report says:
“The presence of major advanced manufacturing and life science clusters around Middlewich and the wider area means that it is imperative to improve connectivity between jobs, housing and leisure at both strategic and local level…There is overwhelming evidence to indicate that the transport network in Mid Cheshire is inadequate to serve both its current population and its economic ambition. A very low percentage rail mode share…coupled with numerous congestion hotspots…point to a transport system that will suppress growth in the near future, if not already doing so. Through national, regional and local transport strategies, there is a clear message that transport connectivity in general, and rail connectivity as the more sustainable option over road, should be invested in. As such there is a commitment nationally to continue to invest in the rail network. Large infrastructure projects such as HS2 are at the core of this commitment, but it is equally clear that locally and regionally, the strategic direction is for investment in rail to connect to and maximise the benefits of these nationally significant infrastructure projects. With their vicinity to Crewe, Mid Cheshire and Middlewich can demonstrate their alignment to this strategic direction at the highest level.”
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Member is giving a great speech about how she has started the work of creating new rail links in her area. With the Beeching reversal fund, there is now an opportunity for many other people to do that, and to learn from her example. The £500 million that has been offered is enough for feasibility studies, but it probably is not enough for the level of ambition that we all have. Does she agree that initially we should follow the example of mid Cheshire, and release that money for large-scale feasibility studies in all constituencies that need new rail to reverse the Beeching cuts?
Fiona Bruce
That is absolutely right. If there is one key to this, I would say that it is to engage the commitment of the local community—it does make a difference.
I am pleased to say that a second study has been funded as a result of the one I mentioned. That second study will be a strategic outline business case, which I believe will report within the next few weeks. I am now asking—please—for an early meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport to discuss how we can translate into reality the long-held dream of the people of Middlewich for their own passenger railway station.
Middlewich is the largest town in Cheshire without a railway station, and it is double the size of other towns, with a population of some 13,600. Construction would not involve a whole new line, because the existing line is still used for freight. Middlewich is very much a growth town. It has an exciting future, with £50 million committed by the Government to the Middlewich eastern bypass. Reopening the station is backed by Cheshire East Council, Cheshire West and Chester Council, and the local enterprise partnership.
If we are thoroughly to address the issue of congestion in Middlewich, we also need to look into having a southern bypass. I hope that Cheshire East and Cheshire West will work collaboratively on this with alacrity, and that this Conservative Government, who are very generous regarding local transport projects, will give us the same generous support that they have for the Middlewich eastern bypass. When I have that discussion with the Secretary of State, I would appreciate it if we could also talk about a southern bypass.
Let me touch on one other aspect of Middlewich transport, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis): buses. I received an email just a few days ago from a constituent saying that we desperately need more buses—and affordable buses—as well as a train station, and that they need to be integrated so that users are considered in the timetabling. I do hope that Cheshire East Council will respond to the many calls I have had from constituents to make funding available for local buses. Campaigning residents have saved the No. 319 Goostrey to Holmes Chapel via Sandbach bus, but may I put in a plea on behalf of residents for the reinstatement of the Saturday service?
Let me now turn to a completely different subject that I am also raising for a second time in the House: the concerns of residents on the Loachbrook estate, Somerford, about outstanding works on their estate. This estate was started over five years ago. The developers closed their sales office and moved off site last autumn. However, there are outstanding works to drainage, lighting, pathways, roadworks, surfacing and landscaping, and items have been left on the site following completion of the development by Bovis Homes—now renamed as part of Vistry Group—following completion of the houses.
I say that I am re-raising this issue because I presented a petition from residents about it on 5 November. I was optimistic at that time that something would happen—that the developers would, as they had indicated to residents, complete the estate and tidy it up by the end of the year. Somerford parish council has also been pressing for action, as has ward councillor John Wray. But unfortunately the work has still not been completed. I have visited and seen that it is very unpleasant for these residents to be living, as some of them have for several years, with temporary ramps, bollards, temporary fencing that children are moving, potentially dangerously, and other unfinished works. It feels to them, one said to me, like the developer has effectively moved on.
What is now particularly frustrating residents is that the local authority appears to be simply—this is a word that it has used—monitoring the situation. As I say, I pay credit to the work that John Wray has done, but otherwise the local authorities are simply now saying that there is a dispute between the contractor that installed the drains and sewers, and United Utilities, the water company, which is refusing to adopt them because it is unsatisfied with the materials used by the contractor. Therefore Bovis is not completing the roads and other works, and meanwhile the council is not enforcing completion of the highway works.
Residents, meanwhile, are caught in the middle of a Catch-22 situation, living on an unfinished site and feeling that their questions and concerns—this is really what adds insult to injury—are being ignored. Communications to Bovis have not been replied to for several months now. One resident recently wrote to me:
“It is most frustrating that no one seems to have the authority to take any action against the developer.”
Another said to me at a meeting I had with them last week, “No one from the authority wants to come and look at the site and they give the impression they cannot enforce their own planning permission.” Another wrote to me:
“Cheshire East…say it is out of their hands.”
Another asked me:
“Why have planning conditions in place if they are not enforced?”
I hope that my raising this yet again in this House prompts action now by all concerned. Perhaps, at the very least, officers from the council could meet residents and me onsite to clarify why enforcement action cannot be taken to resolve these issues. I ask Ministers to consider, since I know that this is not an isolated issue—I have seen colleagues nodding in the Chamber as I have been speaking—what can be done to ensure that builders expeditiously complete landscaping, roadworks, common areas and amenities on new estates, and that local authorities promptly enforce planning conditions, and to consider what sanctions should be imposed if this does not happen. The current situation for residents purchasing new homes in my constituency such as those I have described is completely unsatisfactory.
Finally, I turn to yet another issue that I am raising in the Chamber not for the first time, as I have done so for many years—Congleton War Memorial Hospital. I am pleased to say that we still have this wonderful facility in my constituency, providing excellent local facilities for residents. As one wrote to me recently, it is a valuable local asset. It offers X-rays, ultrasound scans and blood tests five mornings a week, on many occasions efficiently processing over 100 people. It has a geriatric ward and manages various consultants’ clinics five days a week. There is a minor injuries unit.
Recently the hospital has had its difficulties with staffing—I raised this in an Adjournment debate in March 2019—but Congleton War Memorial Hospital is still very much serving the people of Congleton. Bearing in mind that we have an NHS long-term plan, people want to see a Congleton War Memorial Hospital long-term plan. We do not want to feel that we are continually fighting to ensure that these services remain in our local community.
I recently wrote to the chief executive of East Cheshire NHS Trust, John Wilbraham, to whom I have spoken many times over the years and who always listens. He says that he understands
“the desire to maintain local services and the trust continues to have a strategy of providing care as close to home as possible where services meet the expected clinical standards”—
I am pleased that he has reconfirmed that—and that he is
“working with health and care partners as part of the 5 year plan to set out how services will be delivered across Cheshire East into the future.”
May I, on behalf of my constituents, impress on East Cheshire NHS Trust and its partners, and also bring to the attention of Ministers again, the importance of retaining Congleton War Memorial Hospital and community hospitals like it, which really do provide an invaluable service for local residents?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who gave us a great tour of her constituency and the problems she has faced not just recently but, I suspect, for the past 10 years. For new and returning Members, the great beauty of these debates is that we, as Back-Bench MPs, can raise anything that we choose. To those who have made excellent maiden speeches today, I suggest booking a season ticket for these debates, because they will have the opportunity to raise issues on many occasions in the future.
Unfortunately, we have not heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who gives a virtuoso performance at these debates, rattling through every single piece of correspondence he has received over the past three months. We gravely miss him, but I have no doubt that next time we have one of these debates, he will be back. He may be on his way to Downing Street—we never know.
On a serious note, before we rise for the short February recess, there are a few things that I wish to raise. I have often had the opportunity of initiating this debate, and I now have the pleasure of closing it for Back-Bench Members. I raised at business questions this morning the huge deficit in local authority pension funds. That is a real scandal, and it threatens the retirement and future of public sector workers who have worked so diligently for us.
That is not the only thing that local authorities have been engaged in. The National Audit Office has reported on the exposure involved when local authorities buy up commercial properties to get a rental stream, particularly in the retail sector. We know how problematic the retail sector is, how big a risk that is and the threat to the public purse. The Government will need to investigate that shortly.
One of the major issues that most people associate me with is homelessness. I piloted the Homelessness Reduction Bill through the House in 2017. The Act has only been in operation effectively for a year; the duty to refer has been in operation for just over a year. Many thousands of people up and down the country have been prevented from becoming homeless as a direct result of the biggest shake-up in homelessness legislation for more than 40 years. But we still have a big problem. We see every day the signs of homelessness in this country, with people sleeping rough on our streets. I repeat: it is a national scandal that in this country, we still have people sleeping rough. I want the Government to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824, which makes it a crime to not have anywhere to live. That cannot be right in a civilised society. People who are homeless need assistance, not to be arrested and taken to a police station. We need a revision of the law to combat aggressive begging, which we unfortunately see on our streets and our public transport system every day.
One key thing that the Government should do is provide more housing at affordable levels that people can rent and, if they so wish, buy. We built 220,000 units of housing last year, which was the highest number for all but one of the last 30 years, but the Government’s target is 300,000 a year for five years. Unless local authorities build new council houses or properties, we will not get anywhere near the 300,000 units required to enable people to have a home of their own. We need to ensure that we enshrine within this the right to buy for those in council housing and prevent local authorities from using external bodies and housing companies that seek to provide housing but frustrate individuals who wish to exercise the right to buy.
We now need to learn the lessons from the Housing First pilots and roll them out across the country. When someone has been sleeping rough for any period of time, they need not just a secure roof over their head, but a network of support: they will probably need to be treated for mental health problems and certainly for physical health problems. They may need to be cured of alcohol, drug or substance abuse. It is no good just putting them in a home and hoping they will get on with it. They need that network of support. That is going to be key.
I next want to raise the long-term scandal of the victims of the Equitable Life scam. I was proud that the Conservative Government I supported when first elected to this House in 2010 made the commitment, which we are all encouraged to make, to provide justice for those robbed of their money. The Government set up a compensation scheme, but only provided £1.5 billion of the £4.1 billion that was accepted as being owed, meaning that the Government still owe £2.6 billion to the victims of the Equitable Life scandal.
As co-chair of the all-party group, I will continue to campaign for justice for those victims, until such time as we get the Government to provide the funding required. Many of the victims are now very old and vulnerable and desperately need the money. Many others are coming up to retirement age and will need to draw on their pensions, which have been severely downgraded as a result of the particular issues of that scam. The victims are receiving only 22.5% of their assessed loss and that affects nearly 1 million people across the UK, many of whom are nurses or people in our caring professions, who were encouraged by the Government and their employers to invest in these schemes, which then effectively were ceased. We clearly need to combat that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to know that we have a number of new recruits for the all-party beer group. I was delighted to hear that in the debate, as I am sure you are. You will have to read Hansard to see the contributions made, in particular that by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton).
I want to raise a few local issues before we rise for the Adjournment. First, almost no speech by me in this debate would be complete without me raising the issue of Stanmore station. The do-nothing Mayor of London has come up with a grandiose scheme to build on the car park at Stanmore station, which, hon. Members may not be aware, is the terminus of the Jubilee line. It currently has 450 car parking spaces. The Mayor’s aim is to reduce that number by 150 and build multi-storey, high-density flats all over the car park. This has given rise to a very focused local campaign against this monstrosity. The area is characterised by two-storey housing. The Mayor wants to build an 11-storey block of flats alongside the station, which would dwarf the whole area and prevent proper access to and from the station. I am at great pains to say that I want to see more housing provided, but not in this way, and certainly not by reducing the amount of car parking available.
This affects a number of constituencies around London because many people drive to Stanmore to leave their car there and get into London via public transport. I take the view that we want to encourage people to get out of their cars and use public transport, but this will in effect encourage people to drive into London and then leave their car on residential streets, or to drive further down the line and then use stations further into London, so it is a very foolish move in both regards. Over the next few weeks, I will be working with residents groups to combat this at Stanmore station.
Equally, the Mayor has a plan for Canons Park station, which is the next station along the route. He wants to build all over that car park as well, which I think is a retrograde step. There is clearly land alongside the Jubilee line that could be used for housing without having any impact whatever on the car parking provision available. I am looking forward to combating that. We have the London mayoral elections in May, and I am sure that all the residents around Stanmore, Canons Park and Rayners Lane, which is in another part of Harrow, will see a good reason why they should vote for the Conservative candidate in those elections, rather than for the current incumbent.
I also want to raise the issue of crime and the level of policing in Harrow. The tri-borough commander of the police has been very effective in ensuring that our number of police in Harrow is actually above the resource allocation formula, which is good news. The only bad news is that many of those are new graduates from the Hendon Police College and they will take time to come up to speed.
One of the things that has blighted my constituency for the last 18 months has been the rise in aggravated burglaries. This is true in a number of areas of London, particularly the outer-London areas. I am delighted to hear that Shaun Bailey has suggested that we need an anti-burglary squad to be a hit squad of the police to combat those involved in aggravated burglary, who act in gangs in a deliberate, targeted fashion against vulnerable people. This is bizarre form of burglary in which the burglars want people to be at home when they burgle their homes, so that they can beat them up and extract their goods, including their diaries, jewellery and money, and force them to open their safes. This is a particularly pernicious type of crime and it needs to be combated.
On the health service locally, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), my constituency neighbour, drew attention to the situation at Northwick Park Hospital. He is no longer in his place but, if he were, I would just remind him that, when he was re-elected in 2001, he committed to the people of Harrow that there would be a brand new hospital on the Northwick Park site. Nineteen years later, we are still waiting for it. Nevertheless, that was his promise. I am delighted by the fact that, after I was elected, I was able to assist in getting a new accident and emergency unit into Northwick Park Hospital. The reality is that the staff there do a brilliant job in very challenging circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of walk-in centres, such as that at the Belmont health centre, which is in my constituency. I just want to make sure it is on the record that the key here is that there was a walk-in-and-wait service: people could walk in and wait—and wait and wait. Now, without saving a single penny, the CCG has implemented an appointments system, so someone makes an appointment and walks in, and they are seen very quickly after their appointment is due. That saves the health authority money, but actually there is no saving involved because it has trebled the number of appointments available and the service operates seven days a week, between 8 am and 8 pm, so people can see a GP irrespective of which GP they are registered with in Harrow. From that perspective, it is a much better service for the residents of Harrow, which I think is key.
Another issue I perennially raise in these debates is the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital in Stanmore. Again, local people and the trust have battled for 30 years to get this wonderful hospital rebuilt. The first unit on site cost £80 million. It was promised by the last Labour Government but never delivered, and I am delighted that it has been delivered under a Conservative Government. The next phase of the redevelopment involves new car parking facilities, new accommodation for nurses to live in, and other staffing accommodation, but it is being held up by NHS bureaucracy. Given that the project has been signed off at all sorts of levels, it is an outrage that we have to battle forever to get the money to put spades in the ground on site, and get the accommodation that our nursing staff, and other medical staff, desperately need to provide that service.
The next phase will continue rebuilding more of the hospital, so that we get first-class conditions for the brilliant service that is provided on a national scale. Unfortunately, however, there often seems to be a serious problem in getting funding through national health service bureaucracy. Will the Minister take back to the Health Secretary—I understand he is unchanged, which is good news—the message that we must cure the elongated bureaucracy in the national health service? A business plan could be ready and signed off, but it seems to take forever for the bureaucracy to make it happen. That prevents us from delivering the first-rate health service that people in this country expect.
Some may say that MPs are going on holiday next week. I wish it were true. Right hon. and hon. Members across the House will be working hard in their constituencies, meeting residents and constituents about a wide range of issues, and taking up things that matter to them. I wish the House staff a week away from their work in this place, but the rest of us will be working diligently and very hard on behalf of our constituents.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker. One thing that I most enjoyed about being a Whip in the previous Parliament was participating in the debate on matters to be raised before the Adjournment, which was always wide-ranging and an absolute nightmare to sum up. The 17 Back-Bench contributions that we have heard today have been fascinating and contributed to a diverse debate. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is right to say that it is always a joy to witness the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who, in one debate that I summed up, cantered through 26 topics. It may well be the case that he is on his way to Downing Street to be made Minister for the City of Southend, and if that is the case, we wish him well and it is sad not to see him here today. I am, however, hoping to replicate some of what he does by covering a lot of issues.
I thank the hon. Members for Harrow East, for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), for Buckingham (Greg Smith), for Dudley South (Mike Wood), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) and for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) for their contributions. As is always the case after an election, the real pleasure is in listening to maiden speeches, the first of which came from the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans). His speech was incredibly fluid and he spoke with no notes, which in itself shows a real talent on his first outing in the House of Commons. He spoke immensely eloquently about his constituency, and I wish him all the very best as he seeks to serve his constituents.
I took particular interest in the speech by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), and it was fascinating to hear her speak about the mining industry, her time in the Army, and her commitment to beer. One thing people quickly learn in this place—I will come on to this slightly later—is about the cross-party nature of such groups. Last year I attended my first ever dinner with the all-party beer group. I confess that I am not a great fan of beer—some of my colleagues are—but it was amazing to see how collegiate and cross party people are in that respect. I wish the hon. Lady well.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) is of course from New Zealand. This place is enriched by including people from different countries. Well, perhaps not from Scotland, but that is a constitutional point—[Laughter.] She spoke very eloquently and paid kind tribute to her predecessor, Anne Milton, who I had a lot of dealings with on the issue of apprenticeships.
One of the difficulties with maiden speeches is that Members cannot interrupt or intervene. So often in the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), who spoke with great passion about independence, I found myself agreeing and wanting to find out why only this far, and not in Scotland, are we to have the pleasure of independence. None the less, he spoke very eloquently too.
The most moving contribution was probably from the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). I spoke to his Whip earlier today, who informed me of his personal situation at the weekend. He can rest assured that my thoughts and prayers are with him and his family at what must be an incredibly difficult time. I was heartened by his comments about cross-party working. There is no doubt that in this Parliament, with a majority Conservative Government, we are going to get gubbed on absolutely every single vote. I accept that, but this Parliament, for as long as I have to be here, is all the stronger when we work cross-party.
This is a fitting opportunity to pay tribute to the former Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who I consider to be not only a colleague but a good friend. I am very sad to see that she has left the Government. Hers is an example of someone who works on a cross-party basis. I know from the comments made by the hon. Gentleman that he will take that forward, too.
The final maiden speech we heard today was from the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who spoke passionately about her constituency. I absolutely agree with her on funding high streets. Having left the SNP Whips Office and moved into shadowing the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, I am aware that we will speak more about high streets in this Parliament. The nature of towns funds and whether they apply to cities is another matter, as is the issue of Barnett consequentials. So I am very glad she referred to the issue of high streets.
I want to touch on a number of local issues. First, I pay tribute to a campaigning group in my constituency, Restore Glasgow, which is associated with the International Justice Mission. Since last year, I have been working with Restore Glasgow, as well as local authority colleagues, to explore different ways of ensuring greater regulation and licensing of nail bars and car washes, which we know, sadly, are often used for the purposes of human trafficking. More than 250 years since the end of the transatlantic slave trade, there are close to 41 million people still trapped in some form of slavery across the world today, yet nobody really knows the scale and how many victims or perpetrators of this crime there are on these islands in the UK.
The data that has been released is inconsistent. The Government believe there are about 13,000 victims of slavery in the UK, while the Global Slavery Index released a much higher estimate of 136,000 in 2018. One way or another, we must all do more to tackle the scourge of trafficking. I very much commend Restore Glasgow for their campaigning efforts to question consumer behaviour. More often than not, we might think that we are getting a bargain by getting our nails done—well, perhaps not in my case—or a car washed for £2 or £3, but we have to wonder who is really paying the price.
The internationalism and compassion shown by the people of Glasgow East does not just stop at human trafficking. Animal welfare is also close to our hearts. One of the issues that concerns a great many of us is trophy hunting imports. Put simply, trophy hunting is cruel and barbaric, and is helping to push some of the world’s most endangered wildlife ever closer towards extinction. British trophy hunters have killed hundreds of endangered lions, hippos, leopards, rhinos, zebras and other animals in recent years, and brought their “trophies” back to the UK. I am very proud to support early-day motion 50, in the name of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), which calls for a ban on the import of hunting trophies into the UK. That would be an important step to bringing an end to this terrible industry. Animals killed by trophy hunters often suffer slow, painful deaths and this practice has no place in a modern, civilised society. I very much stand ready to work on a cross-party basis with the Government to support any legislation on this issue.
Staying on an international theme, I wish to turn now to urgent support to protect our oceans. Overfishing and plastic pollution are gutting our oceans of life and destroying delicate ecosystems. We need to act urgently to protect them if we are to have any hope of tackling the climate and nature emergency. That is why I am standing with my constituents and supporting a bold global ocean treaty. Right now, only 1% of the world’s oceans are protected. Scientists say that we need to protect at least 30% by 2030, through a network of ocean sanctuaries, placing huge areas of the ocean off-limits to human activity.
For the first time in history, a process is under way to make that possible—the global ocean treaty being negotiated at the UN—but to be frank, the talks are currently on a knife edge and could result in a weak treaty that is unable to properly protect marine life. That would be a disaster for our blue planet and could spell disaster for us too, as our survival and that of the oceans are so interlinked. To get that ambitious deal for our oceans and our climate needs, we need senior politicians in the negotiating room who can push for a strong treaty, so I implore the Prime Minister to send a senior Minister to New York in the next couple of months for the final round of the global ocean treaty negotiations, and to really take this opportunity to leave a better world for our future generations.
Our responsibilities to future generations also extend to child refugees and family reunion. When Lord Dubs’ amendment came to the Commons from the other place last month during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, I was very proud to vote in favour of it, because child refugees with family members here in the UK should not be stuck in camps and car parks alone. By taking the step of removing legal protections to ensure that family reunion continues at the same standard as under current EU laws, I am afraid that the Government are sending a very dangerous signal. We know that when safe and legal routes are not accessible, children are more likely to make more dangerous journeys and to be pushed into the hands of people smugglers. If global Britain is to be anything more than a slogan, the Government really need to act with compassion on child refugee family reunion policy.
I turn to domestic policy and matters specifically impacting on my Glasgow East constituency. The big topic at the beginning of this week—if not today with the reshuffle—was money for rail infrastructure. I have questions about when HS2 would ever reach Scotland and whether there will be Barnett consequentials, but locally, I stand with a lot of residents of my constituency in campaigning for a train station in Parkhead. Parkhead is, of course, the home of the wonderful Forge shopping centre, Celtic Park—Scotland’s largest football stadium, with a capacity of 64,000—and would tie in with the line that goes from Helensburgh Central right through the centre of Scotland over to Scotland’s lesser city of Edinburgh. I implore Ministers in the Department for Transport to work alongside me and see what support we can give to make sure that we get that train station in Parkhead, perhaps through money coming from here up to Scotland, alongside Network Rail.
In recent years, Glasgow’s east end has been savaged by the removal of ATMs and bank-branch closures. Even in my short time in the House, we have lost local branches at the Royal Bank of Scotland in Stepps, Santander in Parkhead and Clydesdale in Shettleston, and that has an impact on ATMs. Indeed, new research from the consumer group, Which?, reveals that the amount paid by consumers to withdraw cash jumped by £29 million to £104 million last year. That has a particularly devastating impact on low-income communities such as those in the east end of Glasgow.
The loss of free access to cash is a crisis that impacts on businesses on the high street as well as older and vulnerable consumers who choose to use cash to budget, and the millions of us who use cash as their preferred payment method. To continue the theme of cross-party working, I was delighted to work on a cross-party basis with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) to lobby the Treasury to commit to introducing legislation that protects access to cash and free withdrawals. I very much hope that the Government can make a positive announcement in next month’s Budget, and if they can, they will certainly have my support.
In Shettleston, Tollcross and Parkhead, we are blessed with beautiful old sandstone tenement properties, which are a major part of Glasgow’s skyline. However, the maintenance of those properties is vital to protecting the existing housing stock and ensuring that our rich architectural heritage is preserved for many more years to come. I know from speaking to local homeowners and housing associations that the prohibitive 20% VAT rate on housing renovation and repair work is a major disincentive to maintaining the properties. I want to see the Government refresh the economic modelling carried out by Experian that looked at the benefits of reducing the VAT rate for housing renovation and repair work. In the run-up to the 2015 election, the Cut the VAT Coalition produced an excellent paper, which the Treasury would do well to go back to, re-evaluate and consider seriously, particularly as we consider decarbonisation and how our domestic properties tie in to achieving net zero, in 2045 or 2050.
In Glasgow East, whisky is a significant part of our local economy and provider of jobs. I have three cooperages, a maturation warehouse and John Dewar’s bottling hall in my constituency. When we think of whisky, it is not necessarily always about space, such as in Islay—it is still a massive provider of jobs even in urban Glasgow East. However, the 25% tariffs imposed on Scotch whisky by the United States are having a hugely negative effect on the jewel in the crown that is Scotland’s food and drink sector. I was in the United States last week, and had the pleasure of meeting American colleagues to press the case for ending punitive tariffs on whisky. I was especially grateful to Congressmen Andy Barr and John Yarmuth—both from Kentucky—for the opportunity to focus on the impact of tariffs on bourbon as well as Scotch. We are absolutely united in our message to London, Brussels and Washington that these tariffs must end in order to protect jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.
Sticking with an overseas theme, I want to turn now to the persecution of Christians, a subject that is close to my heart. I commend the Government on their commitment to promoting freedom of religion or belief, and commend in particular the work of the Prime Minister’s special envoy, the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti). I think that we all want to see the recommendations in the Bishop of Truro’s report implemented, and I am confident that the Government are making progress on that front. I met the special envoy in Washington last week to discuss the issue.
However, I remain deeply concerned about the persecution of Christians in two countries in particular —Nigeria and India. Open Doors reported at least 1,445 physical attacks and death threats against Christians in India over a year. This is the country with which Britain will soon seek a free trade agreement, and I seek reassurance from the Government that, in their rush to conclude that free trade agreement, human rights and freedom of religion or belief will not be overlooked when they are dealing with President Modi’s Government in the coming months. Similarly, on the issue of Nigeria, let me again issue a plea to Foreign Office Ministers in particular to do everything they can to secure the release of Leah Sharibu, who has been held captive by Boko Haram for two years. I happen to share a birthday with Leah Sharibu. It was a privilege to stand with CSW colleagues to mark that day last year, but I very much hope that I will not be doing the same on 14 May this year, and that we will see Leah’s release from captivity.
Let me end by raising an issue that is particularly close to my heart, as a father of two small children and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on premature and sick babies. There are many things on which I disagree with the Government, but my record in the House shows that I am always willing to work on a cross-party basis whenever that is possible. I was genuinely delighted—I say this in all sincerity—to see in the Queen’s Speech a commitment to introduce an employment Bill providing for neonatal care leave. That certainly did not exist when my four-year-old and one-year-old children were born. It is ridiculous that mothers and fathers are having to return to work when their children are struggling for life in neonatal units, and I hope the Government will put that right.
May I gently seek clarity about how the neonatal care leave provision will be framed? I know that the Minister will have a million things to discuss when he sums up the debate, but it would be hugely appreciated if he could find out from those in the Box when the Bill will be published. I hope very much that when the Bill is published it will reflect the pledge in the SNP’s manifesto to provide a week of paid leave for every week that a baby is in neonatal care.
I will wrap it up there, but I hope that the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) would be proud of my “cantering around”. I thank you for your forbearance, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I particularly thank the staff of the House, who have put in an enormous amount of work since the election, looking after not just new but returning Members. I wish all Members a very productive, peaceful and restful recess as we return to our constituencies, and I look forward to seeing all colleagues when we come back in a couple of weeks’ time.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). Let me also say to the House that I will not take as long as that! I do, however, want to acknowledge all those who have spoken, before focusing on the excellent speeches made by new Members.
I thank the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), and the hon. Members for Dudley South (Mike Wood), for Buckingham (Greg Smith) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). I also thank the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and I agree with her about Bovis. I would be happy to talk to her about that. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), and of course I have to make the bid on behalf of the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess): please can Southend become a city? We miss him.
I want to start with the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans). I do not know why he is here, rather than being a GP. From the way in which he has presented himself today, I am sure he must be an excellent GP. He made an excellent speech, and we are lucky to have his talents here as well. I am pleased to see that he is following David Tredinnick and carrying on the tradition of being a member of the Health Select Committee. I also served on that Committee for five years during one of the most difficult times, when the Health and Social Care Act 2012 was being introduced. It is interesting that Tuesday was the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, so the fact that Ada Lovelace was taught in his constituency is excellent. A final word of warning to the hon. Gentleman: do not build any car parks in your constituency until you have let the archaeologists at it.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton)—amazing! The Labour candidate in Wrexham was also female, so in any event Wrexham would have been blessed with its first woman MP. I am delighted to hear that the hon. Lady served in the Army. That is an important voice that we need in the Chamber, not only for those who are currently serving but for those who have left the services, because they too need looking after. I know that she will ensure—whether it is in the St David’s day debate or a Welsh affairs debate—that the grant to the Welsh Government will not be cut by this Government.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) was right about Anne Milton. She was a wise counsel to all of us, and it was lovely when we used to bump into her in the Members’ Lobby, because she always had a word of advice for all of us. We miss her wise counsel. She was a great servant to her party and she will be missed, but I am sure she will be a good source of information for the hon. Member. It is great to see that the hon. Member has already focused on the programme of work she wants to do here and that she wants to tackle homelessness. I am sure she will do that in her constituency, and perhaps she will work on a cross-party basis with all other Members so that we can tackle this terrible scourge in what is one of the richest countries in the world. The hon. Member has made a fantastic journey and I love the idea that her parents were watching from New Zealand, which is where women first got the vote. We can also celebrate the fact that it has a woman Prime Minister.
The hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) also made his maiden speech today. I was going to say that Keith Simpson was a towering figure in more senses than one, but I think the hon. Member has already been more successful than all his other predecessors, because he has managed to get something done about the A47. Norfolk is a fantastic place, and I hope that he is going to focus, as he said, on those wonderful country traditions such as the making of baskets using reeds, which is such a sustainable way of working. I agree with him about the accountability of quangos. That goes to the heart of the democratic deficit that we face. He, too, is a welcome voice here.
The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) —wonderful! I hope he has a good set of walking shoes, because we would all like to join him on his wonderful walks. He was right to remember those who have been affected by the floods; we must not forget them. It is terrible: some of them were without water, and some of them without anything. They were having to do the same thing over and over again. I know he will be a good voice for getting flood defences for his constituency. I do not know whether he is aware that Rory Stewart and lots of other hon. Members have had days on which they invite all hon. Members to the Jubilee Room. However, given that tourism is so important for his constituency, I think that Cumbria day should be held in his constituency so that we can all go up there. I think he is a great fit for his constituency. I also want to thank him for his beautiful tribute to his father. That was really difficult, but I just want to say that his father lives on in him and that he will hear his voice always.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie)—how wonderful! Neil Carmichael was a good friend, but so was David Drew, so we are kind of torn. Neil was very good at working on a cross-party basis. David was probably one of the most relaxed Members I have ever met. Nothing seemed to bother him. He had been a Minister, but he was absolutely wonderful. The hon. Lady has fantastic experience as a councillor and as a lawyer, and I know she will bring that experience to the House. This sounds familiar to me. She said that further education is important, and she will carry on Neil’s tradition in that respect. I liked her final line and the fact that she said she is going to get things done. I am sure she will. She has the energy and focus to do so.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish you, all the House staff, our staff, and every single Member a good short break. Please do take a break, because this is quite a relentless place, and it has been that way since the election. I wish everyone a happy and peaceful time.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
If I the House will indulge me for a moment, I just want to say that I was supposed to be at Harrogate Army Foundation College today. I held a young person’s fair a couple of months ago, and the son of a couple of friends came along, and I am proud to say that Lance Corporal Lewis Horrocks is passing out today. Unfortunately, I was unable to be there to share that experience but, just like his parents Jim and Clare, I am incredibly proud of him today.
There has been a little bit of news going on in the background during this debate. I am sure that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been waiting eagerly by their phones for that reshuffle call—
Stuart Andrew
Well, I want to ensure that people do not have that impression of me, so I will just leave my phone on the Dispatch Box. [Laughter.]
This fantastic debate has demonstrated—several colleagues have mentioned this—the real positives of this Parliament. Members of Parliament from across the House have spoken passionately about their constituencies, the issues that they care about and the desire to get something done to make our whole country—indeed, our whole world—a better place. Perhaps the public should be watching debates such as this a bit more than, dare I say, Prime Minister’s questions. We have had some excellent contributions, so I will go through them and address the questions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) talked passionately about the plans for an arena. As a Member of Parliament for the area, I know that the fantastic Leeds arena has made a huge difference, so I hope that Bristol will get on with that planning permission. He mentioned transport, which will be a recurring theme throughout my response, because all sorts of bids were made, including his eloquent proposal for a park and ride scheme. Of course, the Government are committed to the £100 billion infrastructure fund, which has probably already been spent this afternoon—[Laughter.] But I encourage everybody to ensure that they continue to make suggestions, and I will certainly pass them on.
I was particularly pleased that my hon. Friend talked about local education, which is important if we are going to give our young people the best future. I know how important the aerospace industry is to his constituency, and when I was serving in the Ministry of Defence, I was pleased to visit a factory in his area and see the opportunities being offered to young people through apprenticeships. As he says, social mobility is an incredibly important thing, and we are all responsible for delivering it.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) on his upcoming university fair, which I am sure will be a huge success—I may have to steal the idea for my constituency. He talked about local health services in his constituency, quite rightly praising many of the people who work within them. I am proud of the fact that the Government have put it into law that we will be investing £33.9 billion in the national health service, which will provide us with real opportunities to make the necessary investments. I will ensure that the issues he talked about, particularly the Mount Vernon cancer centre, and his requests are put in front of Health Ministers.
The first of the many fantastic maiden speeches was by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans). The trouble with listening to maiden speeches is that I cringe on realising how awfully rubbish and embarrassing mine was. He said he would not speak for very long, and I was once told that the art of good communication is brevity—I have always tried to keep to that. He rightly highlighted the historic nature of his constituency and its royal connections, and the fact that his constituency is at the very heart of England.
My hon. Friend talked about his work as a GP. In fact, his whole family seem to be GPs, and we should say thank you to him for his service as a GP and to his entire family for their dedication to our national health service. As others have said, we are lucky to have his expertise in Parliament.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) raised an important and sensitive issue that is of particular concern to many people, particularly vulnerable women who are perhaps in difficult circumstances. She is absolutely right that we can talk about these issues in a calm and effective manner. She asked me to raise some specific points with the Home Office and the Home Secretary, and I am happy to do so.
The next maiden speech was by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), and the first thing I have to say is, “Llongyfarchiadau a chroeso i San Steffan.” That means, “Congratulations and welcome to Westminster.” I have a personal interest, because I like to think that I sowed the seeds by standing as a parliamentary candidate in Wrexham in 1997. My result was spectacularly awful. I lost, and the Conservative party lost pretty much every seat in that election.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has become not just the first Conservative but the first woman to be elected for Wrexham. It is a constituency I know well, and I love that she says she has now been forgiven by her family for being a Tory—I went through a similar experience. She is another Member who previously worked in public service in our armed forces and as a nurse. Too often we do not celebrate the work people did before becoming a Member of Parliament, and the contribution they can therefore make to our debates will only enrich how we go on from here. I love that she is a brewster. If she ever wants me to have a taste, I am happy to have a go.
The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) talked about the opportunities of HS2, and she is right that we must look at it from every angle. It is not just about things like connectivity between the north and south; it is about releasing capacity on other lines. It is also about the opportunities it may present for industries like steel and for train companies such as the one in her constituency.
I know full well the issue of spending across borders. I served in the Wales Office, and I well remember our many debates and discussions about that. I am pleased that we are spending £48 billion on rail across the country, which is a huge investment, and now we have the opportunity of £5 billion for buses, too. There are real opportunities here.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of terminal illnesses and benefits, and I will happily raise that with Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions.
A number of Members are concerned about IR35. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said earlier, it is important that people know what taxes they have to pay, but we need to ensure the review reports quickly. I hope there may be further announcements in the Budget on 11 March.
The next maiden speech we heard was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson). I was glad that she paid such a nice tribute to her predecessor, Anne Milton, who, as Deputy Chief Whip, changed the focus from just delivering votes to the welfare of Members of the House. She contributed a tremendous amount with that, and my hon. Friend was right to point that out.
My hon. Friend talked about cricket greens and spending time during the election in good pubs—I did a little of that myself. She also talked about the great charities in her area. I was glad that she also raised the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping, as I am proud that our Government are determined to try to eradicate rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament. As the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) just said, it is fantastic that my hon. Friend’s parents are watching this debate in New Zealand. I have no idea what time it is there, but they have probably switched off now that I am speaking.
The hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) talked about the important issue of charity lotteries. Prior to working in the House, I was the head of fundraising for a couple of children’s hospices and set up a charity lottery to help with that. Such lotteries are an incredibly valuable, reliable and regular source of income, and it is right that we look at this issue. I am pleased to tell her that the order to increase lottery sales and prize limits was laid on 20 January. The reforms will allow charities to raise more money for good causes, and the legislation includes a pro-rated arrangement for the new annual sales limit to enable operators to benefit as soon as possible. The Gambling Commission will be monitoring the impact of the changes to see whether any more work needs to be done. I thank her for raising that important issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) then gave his maiden speech, in which he described his constituency fantastically. He also paid tribute to his predecessor, Keith Simpson, whom I always recall walking around the corridors of Parliament with a book under his arm—he was a great Member of this House. I love the fact that my hon. Friend has taken on the tradition of his seat: campaigning to dual the A47. The tradition started in 1983, so let us hope that in 2020 he will be the one who is able to deliver that. I am sure he will be meeting my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary on many occasions to bring that forward.
I also want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is one of the most diligent Members of this House. I recall that when I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department for Transport, I found myself sitting with some confusion on my face when he walked into a Westminster Hall debate on the east-west Oxford to Cambridge railway. I wondered how on earth he was going to get Northern Ireland into that debate, but he did so with great skill—I say to all my new colleagues that he is the man to learn from. He talked about invasive species, the importance of our ecosystems and protecting our natural environment, and he was right to raise all those issues. The Environment Bill will be debated on 26 February, and I am sure he will take that opportunity to make such points to Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers after the recess.
We then came on to the maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). It must be daunting to realise that one’s predecessors include a former Home Secretary and a former Chief Whip, so I am sure that he has a great future ahead of him. I was particularly intrigued that he offered his most recent predecessor the welcome news that he can bring his sleeping bag and come to say with him—I am sure he will take that up. My hon. Friend talked about Cumbria and the important issues of agriculture and tourism. More importantly, as a proud Unionist, he talked about the importance of a border seat and working across that border to deliver for both areas, because when we work together and are united, we can deliver a great many things.
I was intrigued by my hon. Friend’s background as a vet and his story about anal glands and an amorous dog. When I go home, I usually get a brilliant welcome—not really from my partner, but from my dog. I am afraid that this week I am not going to get such a welcome, because he went to the vets on Monday to have—how can I put it?—his bits done, so am probably not going to be very popular.
I was glad that my hon. Friend talked about things such as mental health, and I pay tribute to the very moving way in which he spoke about his father. One thing I have noticed about this place is that when you talk about something very personal, it is sometimes very hard not to lose your composure. It is quite hard at times and your voice does tremble, but my hon. Friend spoke with absolute clarity. His father has clearly trained many people in the health profession, and I know for a fact that he would be very proud of the way in which my hon. Friend delivered that part of his speech. I think I am right that my hon. Friend’s family were up in the Gallery, and they were clearly moved, too—I congratulate him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) talked about green-belt development, which gives me an opportunity to talk about my constituency a little, because we all face these issues. He was absolutely right about the need for us to look at cross-constituency and boundary issues, and at the impacts that planning applications may have on one area when something is built in another. Exactly the same thing is going on in my area. My hon. Friend is right that we should build on brownfield first; after all, that is what green-belt policy is about: trying to regenerate brownfield areas. He also spoke about infrastructure—no doubt that is another bid going into the Department for Transport. He asked three specific questions about the consideration of residents’ views, mitigation and the combined authority fund, and I will certainly make sure that I raise those points clearly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) spoke with great optimism. She talked about battery-powered aeroplanes—let us hope we can get to that point soon, because it would be hugely helpful. I love the fact that, as the right hon. Member for Walsall South mentioned, my hon. Friend said that she is here to get things done. Every Minister is probably quaking in their boots because, as she said, regardless of what happens in the reshuffle, she will be meeting them. I was particularly pleased to hear her talk about further education and the fact that university is not always the answer for everyone. I did not go to university myself, and at the time I was made to feel like a bit of a failure, frankly. When I go around the country or my constituency, I see many young people developing great skills through apprenticeships, and they then have a real passion that takes them on to a successful career.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) talked about the Oxford-Cambridge expressway, and we have heard his concerns loud and clear. I know his local residents are worried, but they have a great advocate in my hon. Friend as their local Member of Parliament. When they come here on 26 February, they will do so knowing that their concerns have been expressed. My understanding is that the Secretary of State is reviewing the situation. He has heard what has been said and an announcement will come shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) talked about transport and wanting his fair share for his city. It is wonderful that we have so many Conservative MPs bidding for all this transport funding in seats that we have not held for many a year. I know that my hon. Friend has been sending angry letters to Network Rail, so it had better get answering him quickly. He wants to put in a Beeching bid and talked about buses, so there will obviously be a long list of applications for Stoke-on-Trent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) talked about the reopening of Middlewich station. She is absolutely right. Sometimes, when these ideas start off, we might think that they are probably implausible and are never going to happen, but if we are a bit like a terrier and just keep going at it, it is amazing what can be delivered. I will certainly ensure that she gets a chance to meet the Secretary of State as soon as possible. She also talked about outstanding issues on one of her estates, and I had a similar issue in my own constituency. It is not fair on those people who bought a property in good faith and expected to live in a decent environment. I hope that, if Bovis is listening to this debate, it will have the decency at least to reply to her letter and to address the issues facing her constituency. I will also ensure that Health Ministers are aware of the importance of Congleton War Memorial Hospital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked about the local authority pension funding gap. He will probably be aware that, as soon as we get back, we have Housing, Communities and Local Government questions, so I am sure that he will take the opportunity to ask his question.
I want to praise my hon. Friend for the work that he did on homelessness, because his was one of the great private Members’ Bills that went through this House, and he worked hard to ensure that that happened. He is right that there are still many complex issues that need to be addressed, not least the issues of drug and alcohol abuse. We cannot just find people a place in which to live; we have to ensure that they have the ways and means and the life capabilities to be able to sustain their new life. He listed a load of other issues, but I will not go into them all. In fact, I was looking on my app at the Jubilee line, because I could not keep up with all the different stations that he was mentioning. The idea of building on a car park that services public transport seems absolutely ludicrous to me. We did exactly that in my own constituency, and now we regret it. As more and more people use the trains, we cannot then find the places for them to park.
I just wanted to add at the end my thanks to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who spoke about some very important international issues. I know that human trafficking and trophy hunting are very important issues for many Members. I am acutely aware of the importance of the global ocean treaty and the summit in New York, and the issue about child refugees. May I please implore everybody to understand that we have not changed our policy? Child refugees remain an important priority for this Government, and we will make sure that we will continue to stick to that.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the employment Bill. I am afraid that I cannot give him an exact date yet, but I will take up the matter with the Leader of the House, and as soon as I have an answer, I will come back to him.
The right hon. Member for Walsall South finished off the debate by putting in a plea for Southend-on-Sea to be made a city. I do not have the power to do that. If I did, my phone would never ring—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady has just stolen my final line, which was that the only thing that I can see at the moment is a missed call from my mother.
May I conclude by thanking you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the other Deputy Speakers and Mr Speaker, and by saying that I have noticed a considerable difference in tone and atmosphere in this Chamber, which I think is appreciated by everybody in the House? It is only now that I realise how awful those past 18 months were. The way in which, as a team, you have all helped to ensure that the Executive are rightly held to account, but have done so efficiently and ensured that everybody is treated with respect, has not gone unnoticed. I also wish to thank all the other staff—the catering staff, the parliamentary security staff who keep us safe, and all the Clerks who give us the advice that we need to do our jobs properly. I thank you all very much.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Mr Andrew, I suspect that your mother was calling to ask, “Has Boris rung yet?” I am sorry, Mrs Andrew, but he hasn’t— not yet.
Before putting the Question, I want to wish everybody a very peaceful and happy recess. I think that Valerie Vaz was absolutely right—this place can be relentless at times, so it will be good to have a rest during this short recess. I thank all those who work in the House, in whatever capacity that happens to be. I come in very early in the mornings and the cleaners are here before me, and when I am leaving they are here then. I thank those who keep us safe. It is at this time that I reflect on the ultimate sacrifice that PC Keith Palmer made to keep us safe.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Coventry IKEA Store Closure
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
I am very pleased to have secured my first Adjournment debate, and on a topic of real importance to my constituency. The Tuesday before last, IKEA announced that it will be closing its flagship store in Coventry this summer, putting 352 jobs at risk. The store is in the city centre, at the northernmost point of my constituency. The announcement came out of the blue for many, including its workers.
Coventrians have been in touch with me to express their shock and sadness at the announcement. Over 3,300 people have signed an online petition calling for the store to stay open. People have expressed their “devastation” at its loss, seeing it as “an iconic part” of the city’s landscape. It has been part of the city’s scene since 2007, when it became IKEA’s first city centre shop. It is indeed distinctive; its blue and grey walls, standing seven floors tall, can be seen from a distance. Since it opened, it has become a major site in the city’s shopping ecosystem, attracting people from across the region to the heart of Coventry. Its closure will be felt hard by the city—mostly, of course, by the workers and their families, who risk their livelihoods being devastated, but also by the many people who enjoyed spending time in its café, the small businesses that benefited from the people it attracted to the city, and the many students who relied upon it to fit out their university rooms. A friend even told me how sorely she would miss its meatballs.
The closure speaks to two much broader trends that have significance for Coventry and beyond. The first is the rise and fall of industry and the effects of what we now see in Coventry and across the midlands and the north: deindustrialisation. Where we now have low-paid and insecure retail jobs, there was once strongly unionised, relatively well-paid and stable employment.
Industry has always come and gone in Coventry. As with capitalism generally, it uses, exploits and discards working people as it pleases. This was true with the textile industry in the 17th century, which began with the labour of Huguenot refugees and at its height employed 25,000 people in the city, only later to crash and leave workers ruined. It was also true of the manufacturing of cycles and clocks, which in the late 19th and early 20th century became the backbone of the city’s industry. By the mid-20th century it was the motor industry that was booming, this time on the back of Irish migrants, and it provided the city’s working class with work.
By the 1970s, Jaguar, Standard-Triumph and Alvis all had manufacturing plants in what was then dubbed “Britain’s Detroit”. With it there came good, unionised jobs and Coventry enjoyed relative prosperity. However, as had happened to the industries before it, at the whims of bosses in search of cheaper labour, much of the motor industry moved abroad, again leaving the city’s working class abandoned. Unemployment exceeded 20%, and by the early 1990s discontent triggered riots across the city. This abandonment was felt so much that it is even said that the city’s very own The Specials based their classic “Ghost Town” on the sense of loss felt in the city.
The city has never fully recovered from deindustrialisation because today there are not the mass, well-paid, highly-skilled and secure employment opportunities for kids growing up in Coventry. This is clearly shown by the fact that where the IKEA store stands today there once stood the site of a General Electric Company factory.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we are in urgent need of a clear strategy to maintain and grow our city centres? The UK must remain a place of thriving town centres, with security and well-paid jobs, and places such as Coventry must be at the centre of this work.
Zarah Sultana
I thank my hon. Friend for making a really important point. I will be coming to the decline of the high streets and regional investment in a moment.
The General Electric Company factory was a six-storey building, employing thousands of people in relatively decent and unionised work. With deindustrialisation, Coventry has seen secure and well-paid jobs replaced by insecure and poorly-paid work. This is the first story that the loss of the IKEA store speaks to. The second is the decline of the British high street.
Coventry city centre, like all our city centres, is more than a place to shop. It is the beating heart of the city—a place that should provide community, culture and character. But in the last decade, the retail sector has been increasingly hard hit and empty shops are becoming commonplace. As one Coventrian said at the news of the store’s closure, the city risks becoming a ghost town again.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As someone who has bought numerous furniture items from IKEA and spent frustrating hours putting them together, I understand the IKEA furniture concept. Does the hon. Lady agree that the potential loss of 352 jobs is horrific, and that there must be an onus on a chain store as large as IKEA to go the extra mile by placing members of staff in other stores or ensuring that they are trained for new jobs? It is not enough to just up sticks with a “too bad, too sad” attitude; that just will not be accepted.
Zarah Sultana
Absolutely. The priority has to be every single member of staff whose job is at risk. IKEA should prioritise their needs, and ensure that they are redeployed to other stores or offered skills and training.
The words of The Specials risk becoming true once more. But there is a broader trend; there are now roughly 25,000 empty retail spaces around the country, which is a vacancy rate in excess of 10%. Last year, 57,000 retail jobs were lost, and a further 10,000 were lost last month alone. The market is only too happy to put workers on the scrapheap the moment that the profit motive demands, and there is a real danger that these IKEA workers will be discarded too, but they must not be forced into unemployment with all the strain and pain that it brings.
I know how grim unemployment can be. I know what it feels like. I know the sense of shame for people who stand in the queue at the jobcentre. I know the loss of confidence they feel, the impact it has on their self-esteem and the fear they feel that they may lose their skills. I have been there. For the sake of these workers—and workers across Coventry and the country who are at risk of losing their jobs, are stuck in insecure work or are already out of work—I tell the Minister that it is his responsibility to ensure that this does not happen. It is his responsibility to protect workers from unemployment and to ensure that the training, reskilling and job opportunities exist to give everyone the chance to have decent, well-paid and secure work. We cannot have a Government who oversee the opening up of food banks and the closing down of good workplaces.
The Prime Minister likes to talk about “levelling up” the country. Well, I hope I am forgiven for not believing a man whose party drove the deindustrialisation that now blights the midlands and the north; whose party slashed the funding of public services that working people rely on, cutting more in the midlands and the north than in the wealthy shires; and whose party continues to prioritise the City of London, which dominates the economy, and concentrate spending on the capital and the south-east. After all, in his own words, nobody “stuck up for the bankers” more than he did.
If the Prime Minister were to follow up on his promise to invest in the region, here is what he would do for workers in Coventry—here is what he would do to ensure that the 352 workers at the IKEA store would not have to fear unemployment. It means reversing decades of deindustrialisation and instead investing in new green industries to kick-start the green industrial revolution, including manufacturing electrical vehicles to bring back the motor industry to the west midlands, but now reducing emissions and improving air quality. It means investing in Coventry’s public transport, opening up new rail lines and bringing them into public ownership to make travel free and green. It means reversing cuts to local government, whereby councils have lost 60p to every £1, so that Coventry City Council can support the local community as it wants to. It means rejuvenating Coventry city centre and high streets across the country by giving local councils the power to open empty retail spaces to start-ups, co-operative businesses and local community projects. It means not pretending that you are not to blame for the collapse in bus services, when Conservative Governments have cut £645 million in real terms from buses, and instead putting real money into our bus services and letting under-25s travel for free. That is how we can rejuvenate Coventry city centre and high streets across the country.
Coventry is the city of culture 2021; it is a city rich in culture and industrial history. But the closure of IKEA will be the latest episode in what happens when Governments do not invest in all regions, allow deindustrialisation to go unchecked and let our high streets empty. That must not continue. I give my solidarity to the workers at IKEA at what is a difficult time for them and clearly state that I am here to fight for them and for all workers.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
It is very good and pleasing to see you back in your rightful place, Mr Deputy Speaker. I concur with remarks that have suggested that the tone in this Chamber has significantly improved since the last election.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) on securing this important debate. She has shown in her brief time in this House a real concern for her constituents that is very much noted and very impressive, particularly in the context of this sad news from IKEA.
I have no doubt that the announcement from IKEA is of great concern to employees, their families and the wider community in Coventry. I am sure that the House will be sympathetic to all those whose livelihoods have been affected, or are likely to be affected, by this announcement. I understand that IKEA is currently in consultation with its staff, and it would not be appropriate for me today to make any assumptions about the possible outcome of those conversations and that consultation. IKEA has made it very clear that its ambition is to retain as many workers as possible. I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government will work closely with IKEA to ensure that all affected employees are provided with the required support to move to their next employment quickly or to be reassigned within the company.
The retail sector, as the hon. Lady observed, has been going through a period of unprecedented change. Companies across our economy need to merge, expand and sometimes contract and reorganise in the light of quickly changing economic and commercial circumstances.
It is important to understand why IKEA proposes to close its Coventry store. The business has stated that the reason for announcing this closure is that, when it opened the shop in 2007, it was testing a new format to meet its customers’ changing needs and expectations.
Taiwo Owatemi
From the meeting I attended with IKEA alongside my two colleagues in Coventry, I understand that the Coventry IKEA store was a pilot store. There was no other city-centre IKEA like it in the UK. Infrastructure was built around this project. Does the Minister agree that pilot stores should face more scrutiny before they are built or large units such as IKEA stores are purchased?
Kwasi Kwarteng
That comment makes sense after the event; I have no doubt about that. Like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I have shopped in IKEA, but, I am sure, with considerably less success in putting together the items of furniture I bought. I remember that at the time, it was hailed as a significant step. People welcomed the employment opportunity and the opportunity to shop in the centre of Coventry. It now transpires that it has not worked out as people anticipated. The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) is right; there needs to be a measure of scrutiny, but I would be reluctant to introduce legislation that would prevent other companies from innovating and opening pilot stores in the way that IKEA did in 2007.
The store attracted significantly less footfall than IKEA originally forecast. It was built over seven floors, and there were issues with how easy it was to shop from the top and then go down to where the payments were made. The company found it very challenging, and the operating costs were high. When the company conducted a full review last year, it felt that the only option it had, or the easiest and most profitable in terms of the entire company and its employees, was to review the operation of the store. The company felt that the bespoke nature of the store design and the high costs involved meant that it had to reconfigure the unit, and sadly, it has decided to close the store. I understand that it looked at other options aside from store closure, and it maintains that this is an exceptional case.
I welcome IKEA’s recent news that it is investing £170 million in the acquisition of Kings Mall shopping centre, which demonstrates the fine balance between investing in new facilities and making difficult decisions about existing ones. IKEA has confirmed that it remains committed to this country and to its ambitious growth plans, and it will continue to invest in stores and provide jobs, employment and economic opportunities to its staff. It has not turned its back yet on the city-centre format, and it is also looking at digital capabilities.
I now turn to what the Government are doing to support retailers. We are all aware of the difficulties in the sector. People rightly talk about business rates. My Department is conducting a review of business rates, and my colleagues at the Treasury are committed to a fundamental review of that tax. It is vital to provide the right tax environment for businesses to invest and grow. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), co-chairs the industry-led Retail Sector Council with Richard Pennycook, chairman of the British Retail Consortium. The council’s objectives are driven by industry and by consumer needs. It wants to make positive change, increase productivity and ensure that the sector remains robust and sustainable.
The hon. Member for Coventry South mentioned the need to create new forms of employment in areas that have suffered from deindustrialisation. As a Government and as a society, we have to think about new forms of industry and job creation. My Department is at the centre of that. We are driving innovation in green jobs. She will know about the strides we have made in offshore wind, which I know is not necessarily directly associated with Coventry. The fact remains that through environmental innovation, our environmental concerns and the green agenda, we are looking to create hundreds of thousands more jobs in that sector across this country than exist today. The statistic I remember is that we have 460,000 jobs in the green economy today, and by 2030 we hope to have 2 million, which is a four times increase in the number of jobs. This is a hopeful subject not only for constituents up and down the land but for the UK economy and the fight against climate change.
In concluding my remarks, I would like to speak generally about the high street. Coventry has a great high street, as many of our towns and cities do. As constituency MPs, we all appreciate how important the high street is, what a centre it is and how it forms the heart of many of our communities. People care about high streets. They are hubs for local people, job creators and nurturers of businesses of all shapes and sizes. I fully understand the devastating impact that the closure of IKEA in the centre of Coventry and the loss—the potential loss, because those people have not lost their jobs yet—of 352 jobs. We all understand the massive and depressing effect that that can have on the high street.
People up and down the land rightly feel very passionate and concerned about their local high street. We in the Government also recognise that this is a problem, and we share the passion and concern. That is exactly why, in July 2019, the Prime Minister announced a £3.6 billion towns fund to re-energise local economies. This included an accelerated £1 billion for the future high streets fund, which is going to support and is already supporting local areas in England to renew and reshape town centres and high streets in a way that not only improves the experience but drives growth and a future economic path. I acknowledge the fact that Coventry city centre was among the first 14 places announced as taking part in the high streets taskforce pilot. This Government feel that the high street is at the centre of our national life, and we are absolutely committed to maintaining its strength.
I hope that these schemes demonstrate our commitment to communities across the country, especially Coventry and the wider midlands. The Government will not just stand by and watch valuable retail industry fade away. Nobody in this Government fails to recognise that retail is absolutely vital to our economy and our various communities. The Government are committed to working with industry to address the key issues of concern and to drive positive change and innovation. Retailers remain a crucial part of our regional economies.
Taiwo Owatemi
Will the Minister set out how the Government are encouraging more innovation in the retail industry? It is no secret that shopping behaviours have changed, so the industry must change too. The Government must lead the way in helping small and medium-sized businesses to adapt and survive these changes.
Kwasi Kwarteng
This is absolutely at the centre of the strategy. The hon. Lady will know that we have many schemes in BEIS, such as local hubs, and we also encourage people to work with their local enterprise partnerships. As I have stated, we have already announced a £3.6 billion towns fund. There are opportunities, and perhaps she would like to meet me and officials in my Department to discuss how we can drive some of these issues further and how we can tap into or unlock some of those resources. There are those schemes, and there is an absolute commitment on the part of this Government to make sure that our retailers do not fade away.
In conclusion, I know that in the immediate aftermath of that announcement there is little the Government can do to soften its immediate blow, but I am convinced there is a way through this. I believe that IKEA’s commitment to this country means that it will bend over backwards to ensure that as many people as possible can be redeployed and found other employment. If that is not the case, the Government are willing and eager to engage with representatives, and Members of Parliament from across the House, to consider ways to provide security, employment, and a better future for our citizens across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Treasury
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Three years ago, at my first shadow Treasury questions from this Dispatch Box, I asked the Government about their plan to continue market access for financial services to EU countries after Brexit. Since that time, the Government’s ambitions have faded from the wide-ranging access-all-areas free trade deal that we were promised, to a basic agreement barely covering goods. The Chancellor has announced this morning that he is asking for enhanced equivalence for financial services, which the EU has already ruled out and which does not even exist in sectors such as insurance. This is our largest export sector, so how is it that we are still waiting for a credible plan after three years?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman needs to get his facts right. The EU has not ruled out equivalence. Indeed, it agreed in the political declaration to work at speed on an equivalence decision by the end of July this year, and that is welcome. We are working very carefully and closely with the EU on having a broad agreement that will mean that our financial services continue to thrive—not only for our benefit, but for its benefit.
[Official Report, 11 February 2020, Vol. 671, c. 690.]
Letter of correction from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid):
An error has been identified in my response I gave to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds).
The correct response should have been:
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman needs to get his facts right. The EU has not ruled out equivalence. Indeed, it agreed in the political declaration to work at speed on an equivalence decision by the end of June this year, and that is welcome. We are working very carefully and closely with the EU on having a broad agreement that will mean that our financial services continue to thrive—not only for our benefit, but for its benefit.
Agriculture Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 13th February 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 February 2020 - (13 Feb 2020)
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from NFU Cymru, the Farmers’ Union of Wales, and the Welsh Government. Thank you very much for coming and welcome. We have until 12.15 for this panel. Would you introduce yourselves before we move to questions?
Huw Thomas: I am Huw Thomas, NFU Cymru political adviser, based in Builth Wells.
John Davies: I am John Davies, president of NFU Cymru.
Tim Render: I am Tim Render, director for environment and rural affairs in the Welsh Government.
Dr Fenwick: I am Nick Fenwick, head of agricultural policy for the Farmers’ Union of Wales.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Q
John Davies: Thank you, Minister. Obviously, we await any announcements eagerly. We would look to amend where there are, we would say, unfair penalties for minor infractions. There are major improvements to be made there, for instance. There will be a need for more trees to be planted in future; where there are hedgerows or woodlands, at present, they are taken out of any calculation. There are minor adjustments to be done there that could reduce stress quite significantly in the interim period, I would suggest.
Dr Fenwick: We entirely agree with that. Penalties are a huge issue. It is widely recognised that they are very often completely disproportionate to things that have no impact on the wider environment or the general public. Things that may have cost Government, for the sake of argument, a few pounds, can incur fines of many thousands of pounds.
Greening is another issue. The 100 trees per hectare limit has had a very big impact and goes completely against the current thinking on the importance of trees. The way that it has been implemented in Wales—understandably, given the wording of the European legislation—seems counter-intuitive, given the priorities in terms of silviculture and agriculture co-existing.
Tim Render: From the Welsh Government perspective, we consulted on this question in our last document on ideas for taking farming policy forward and future farm support measures. We also identified that, as part of the transition, you would need to look at simplification. The four things that we flagged were very much penalties, as union colleagues have identified; some of the issues around cross-border payments and the single application rule; the basic payment scheme window for unvalidated beneficiaries; and how the environmentally sensitive permanent grassland rules operate. As I say, those are things that we consulted on. We are assessing the consultation responses at the moment and will make policy decisions on how to implement that when we have the powers, through the Bill, to implement—potentially from 2021.
Huw Thomas: One thing to point out is that the powers relating to Wales in schedule 5 are far more modest than those described for England in clause 9. The scope of the ambition for Wales is perhaps somewhat curtailed by that. In relation to England, you have far more powers to remove and reduce burdens, penalties, financial costs and so on; for Wales, the powers are a bit narrower in scope. That is just something to note.
George Eustice
Q
John Davies: I would say that it is very difficult to farm in a prescriptive way. We have a real challenge this year with the weather, which will cause real issues around the three-crop rule, so we need to be flexible in our approach there, because it is simply not practical in some areas at some times. We need more flexibility.
Dr Fenwick: We agree entirely. Something that is aimed at certain types of farms has actually had an impact on the types of farms that it was not aimed at—I am talking about the impacts of greening. Indeed, that has been recognised across the EU. The European Commission is undertaking the same process of looking at greening and how it should be improved, and has taken steps in that direction. I think it is universally recognised as completely disproportionate.
Tim Render: We would be happy to look at that in the light of the consultation responses we get.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Q
John Davies: We have a very clear vision and ambition to lead the world in producing the most climate-friendly food, and that is to be realised with proper policy and proper support going forward. Obviously, it would be a disaster if that were then undercut by food production systems that are illegal in the United Kingdom, so we would be deeply concerned about the opportunity there and we would like to see that much more strongly identified in the Bill and ruled on.
We welcome the comments that a number of you made during the Second Reading debate. Also, Liz Truss, International Trade Secretary, said last week:
“In addition, nothing in any agreement will undermine the Government’s commitment to tackling climate change.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 15WS.]
We lead the world with our commitment to net zero by 2040, so we look to that being honoured. That is an absolutely key statement to us going forward.
Dr Fenwick: In clause 36, which relates to organic products, subsection (5) makes it clear that it is possible to restrict or prohibit the import of organic products. That will be legislated for once the Bill becomes an Act. We would have expected an equivalent paragraph or provision relating to other production standards to have been incorporated in the Bill. It is there for organic, yet it is not there for all these other issues and in particular the key issue that John raised—our environmental and climate change obligations.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Q
John Davies: If we take America to start with, there is real hunger to access the UK market, but they are pretty adamant that their standards are the standards and that they work on equivalence. Obviously, we would have deep concerns about that for a number of specific aspects. Other countries are more flexible and will look to change, I guess, but I think it needs to be written in absolutely, in black and white.
Dr Fenwick: It is clear from the leaked trade talks document that came out in November—which we assume are valid—that there is that appetite. It seems to provide evidence that that appetite is there. We also know that from the defensive position taken by scores of countries when the UK and the EU first agreed how certain issues would be balanced—in those few areas where agreement was reached—in terms of the splitting of our quotas as regards New Zealand lamb and Australian products. The objections submitted then to the World Trade Organisation by these countries make it clear how important we are as an existing trading destination for them and as a potential destination.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Q
“The regulations may make provision requiring a devolved authority to provide information to the Secretary of State.”
Do you want a corresponding requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the devolved authorities on the operation of those provisions? This is about classifying domestic support in so far as it affects the agreement on agriculture and relates to our position in the WTO. It is a very specific question: do you think that Wales—and Scotland and Northern Ireland—should be consulted, as well as required to provide information?
Tim Render: That question is probably for me. This is an issue that we had extensive conversations with the Minister about regarding the equivalent text in the previous version of the Agriculture Bill. Yes, we would love a consent provision, but in the context of the last Bill we came to a bilateral agreement between the UK Government—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—and the Welsh Government on how the provisions would be operated in practice. The Minister has confirmed to us that that agreement will be carried over with this Bill. We look forward to him making that statement again during this stage of the Bill or at a later stage in the House, about how we would work together on that, about the advice and about, were there to be disagreement, our opposition being formally presented to the House of Commons to be part of your decision-making process. We have agreed a way of working to ensure that that voice is heard effectively.
Thangam Debbonaire
Q
Tim Render: It is not in the Bill, but I have the text in front of me. It is an exchange of letters that was published in the context of the previous Agriculture Bill. In our bilateral conversations with the Minister and DEFRA colleagues, we have assurances that that can be taken forward in the context of this Bill.
Thangam Debbonaire
Q
Tim Render: We would be happy with that, yes. That is essentially our way of working, but if it is written in the text, that would be even stronger.
Dr Fenwick: We would also welcome such an addition. It must be noted that this extends to far more than WTO issues, given where we are with our current financial ceiling; we are well below WTO limits. The WTO issue is absolutely essential to avoid disputes, but a key issue for us is the fact that we are moving from a very specific framework of financial ceilings for different areas of spending to one that is almost as liberal as it could be. It appears to us that there will be a single financial ceiling for agriculture expenditure in each of the devolved regions and in England.
For example, under EU legislation, we have multiple ceilings relating to how much we can spend on direct interventions in agriculture production and on young people, how much money can be diverted to rural development spending and so on. I am afraid that this area just screams divergence between nations at an unprecedented level, as do many of the other sections.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Q
Huw Thomas: On the red meat point, we are broadly content. We have been calling for this for a number of years. The issue of repatriating the red meat levy has been a bit of a running sore for a long time, so we welcome this. There has to be a will on the part of the parties concerned to use the new powers that they are about to have conferred upon them. It is all well and good to legislate, but the parties need to work together and find an equitable solution to this problem.
We are glad to see this change, but we would not preclude collaborative working at a pre-competitive stage between the domestic levy bodies on things such as red meat, health and climate, which are not directly related to the market. Repatriating the levy is certainly something that we welcome.
Dr Fenwick: We recommended precisely this sort of action in the Radcliffe review, which was published in 2006. That is how long this issue has been running for. We very much welcome that this is there, but this is the first step—it simply opens the door. Given that lengthy period of waiting, and the imbalance in where the levy has been spent, this needs to be acted on once that door is open.
Tim Render: We welcome the clause on the red meat levy, and we are grateful to the Minister, who has put a lot of effort into working with the devolved Administrations to craft this, to resolve this long-standing issue. On the way the Welsh Government are looking to take things forward, we have said that we plan to produce a White Paper by the end of this year, which will set out the framework for a Welsh Agriculture Bill. Ministers have said that they want to take that forward early in the next Assembly term in 2021.
In terms of operational measures, we have already announced that we will effectively maintain the basic payment scheme approach in 2021 as well, so we have that package of measures to take forward in our own Welsh Bill. That would, I suspect, mirror and address some of the wider issues that this Bill takes forward but are not reflected in the Welsh schedule, as well as dealing with some wider things.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Q
Tim Render: Of course, agriculture is a fully devolved policy area, so we will be developing our own equivalents of the land management approaches that England is proposing. We have already issued two major consultation documents with a lot of detail on that. What we are looking to do through this Bill is to ensure continuity: to make sure that a lot of the important operational elements that mean the agricultural market can work effectively and we continue to have the powers to pay agricultural support to farmers, will be in place and can be maintained beyond the end of this year. From a Welsh perspective, the main thing this Bill does is give us those continuity and keeping pace powers.
However, what we have explicitly decided not to take through this Bill—this is a change from the previous Bill—are powers to make radically new types of payments, analogous to the ELMS in England. We discussed that with the Assembly, and they felt that it was potentially such a large change that they wanted to be able to influence that development of a Welsh agriculture policy, so we have not taken those powers to make major changes in the future; that is what we would do through a Welsh Bill. Obviously, this will depend on the Government after the Assembly elections in May 2021, but we would expect that to be taken forward fairly rapidly as a new Welsh agriculture Bill in that period. As I say, we will be setting out detailed ideas as to what would go in that Bill, particularly the new powers, building on the very detailed proposals we have already set out in consultation documents.
John Davies: It is vital that we take our time over this, because we still do not know what trading environment we will be operating in, and there is an awful lot of volatility out there. It is absolutely vital that we get this right and do it in a co-production way. If we get it right, there are real opportunities; it needs to be a co-operative model that we not only design with the industry, but across different Departments of the Welsh Government. Recently, the Welsh Government have announced that we have hit our target for food sales from Wales, which is £7.5 billion. If we get our “sustainable farming and our land”—that is the name of our new agricultural policy —and sustainable brand values right, we will have two gears meshing, which will really benefit our climate credentials and validity by being able to prove that what we do and how we do it are totally sustainable. It is vital that we get this right and do not rush it.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Q
Huw Thomas: Probably the biggest missed opportunity is the one about standards, which we have already covered, but there are certainly provisions in the Bill that we welcome. The food security provision, for example, is new and something we have been pressing for for quite a while. The requirement to report every five years is not especially ambitious; it should be every year. Especially as we are transitioning out of the EU and leaving those structures behind, we need to ensure we have a review every year. I would also suggest that the Bill does not impose any positive obligations on a DEFRA Minister—for example, in the light of an adverse finding in a report on food security. You could consider placing obligations on Ministers if we are found to be deficient in food security.
Dr Fenwick: From our point of view, it is about more than farming and food production per se; it is about the families that farm on the land. There are certain types of farming that continue, but effectively the communities do not. We see that in parts of England; thankfully we do not see it so much in Wales, if at all. We would say there has been a missed opportunity to include among key priorities the sort of ambition that is there at EU level in terms of the reforms that are going through, which relate to looking after farming families and communities and to laying out sentences explicitly in legislation.
I refer you back to what Tom Williams said about the 1947 Act, which was in place until it was superseded by EU regulations. He said it was based on providing
“adequate remuneration and decent living standards for farmers and workers”—[Official Report, 17 December 1945; Vol. 417, c. 931.]
with a reasonable return on capital investment. We would welcome that sort of aspiration being inserted into the Bill.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The other day, we heard evidence from John Cross of the Traceability Design User Group and Simon Hall, who is the managing director of Livestock Information Ltd, which is a new organisation. I thought they were a little vague on details of the traceability service that they are setting up in England, and on how it will integrate or potentially even overrule existing traceability services in the devolved nations. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on that.
Dr Fenwick: Having only had the time to look at this and go through it as thoroughly as I could yesterday, that clause did ring alarm bells for me. Compared with other systems, Wales has a very successful sheep traceability system that it took into public ownership, rather than farming it out to a private body. It works very well. It could work better, as is the case with all systems, but we hope to develop it into an improved system that will encompass more species. That is certainly the aspiration, and that clause of the Bill certainly raises questions about how those two things interact.
It certainly makes sense to have some form of central data collection point for the UK, given that we are a single country and that it is important for our trading arrangements with other countries. Nevertheless, it depends on how that functions. That part of the legislation would effectively grant powers to non-public bodies—boards that are given certain powers by the Secretary of State. That in itself raises questions; indeed, it is why you took evidence from the witnesses that you mentioned.
Tim Render: To build on that, there are clearly some really important operational issues with the livestock identification systems. We are developing the livestock identification system that we already have in Wales, which works very well. It was co-designed with the industry for ease of operation. We also built it with expansion to different species in mind, so we are looking to turn it into a full livestock ID system, building on a proven IT platform and user interface. It is absolutely vital that we get the behind the scenes IT with what happens in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to have that interchange of data, because you have got cross-border trade and that is how you manage animal health issues, which do not respect borders. That is the big piece of IT work that we are doing with colleagues in DEFRA and colleagues in the other Administrations around the livestock identification system. We will build our own front-end system for Welsh farmers to use, building on what the industry sees as a successful system.
John Davies: It is vital that we get this right. Animal disease does not respect boundaries well, and I concur with everything said in terms of the databases talking to each other. There is also an opportunity here to bring realtime information to purchasing decisions around animal health and the likes, and we need to get this right.
Dr Fenwick: If I may come back, to lessen the potential adverse impacts of clause 32, which amends the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, there needs to be at the very least a duty to consult and reach agreements with Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Government and so on to ensure that this does not hand over an extreme power to, in effect, an English board.
Deidre Brock
It is the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board.
Dr Fenwick: Yes, or it could be anyone, because it is only created with those powers.
Deidre Brock
Q
Tim Render: At the moment, it is only sheep for which there is a full integrated electronic system.
Deidre Brock
In Wales.
Tim Render: In the UK. The other systems are much more primitive, it is fair to say. For instance, the British cattle movement service is not essentially an online realtime system. This is one area where we have what are technically called concurrent powers and we are in discussion with DEFRA about these powers and those around organics being subject to consent by devolved Administrations rather than just consulting, for the reasons that colleagues outlined.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
Q
Dr Fenwick: There are about 600 cross-border farms. Some are administratively answerable to England and some to Wales, depending on the proportion of land on each side of the border—I think that is how it works. Those guys have consistently been the last people to receive payments of any form for the last 15 years, since basic payments and what is generically called the single farm payment was introduced in 2005. They have a very tough farm and are placed at significant disadvantage.
Divergence will clearly be an issue for those farms. Conversely, some of the powers in the Bill would lessen the impact, allowing their payments to be released earlier by changing EU regulations that make it difficult when one payment authority is slower than the other at processing applications—because unless everything has been processed, payments cannot be released. The ability to change the rules is therefore welcome, but as things diverge, as they may well do—it is difficult to see how they would not—a lot of thought and care needs to be taken regarding those impacts. It is not just divergence over payment systems and policies; it is also about standards. This provides an opportunity for Wales to, for example, have different assurance standards from England, yet we have a 300-mile-or-so border, which is effectively porous.
John Davies: As one of the UK NFUs, we have a fantastic working relationship. We met last week in Glasgow at NFU Scotland’s AGM. Divergence is front and centre of all our minds, because it is vital that we do not diverge too greatly and create a different trading environment in the UK. That is really important. The key basis that we always operate on is that everything should be done through agreement, not imposition. That is our guiding principle.
Tim Render: Divergence is a consequence of devolution, in that you are making different choices to reflect different circumstances, although I have a lot of sympathy for Mr Davies’ points about operating in a common market, and about standards and not diverging in some of those areas.
The issue of cross-border farms keeps me awake at night, as I think about how I move to develop a new policy. It is one of the really difficult issues. We do not have clear answers to it yet. We are working with the industry and DEFRA on what doing potentially quite different things in return for public support on either side of the border means for those 600-or-so farms that are potentially on either side of that. How we manage that is a tricky question. I do not have any answers to that, but it is something that we are working on with DEFRA and the industry, to work out what the most practical, simple and effective way of doing it is.
Dr Fenwick: When it comes to divergence, of course devolution implies divergence. We as a union supported devolution, so we have no problem with divergence, but it was divergence within boundaries. The current EU framework has strict boundaries in terms of flexibility within legislation and flexibility within financial limits. We are looking, potentially, at a complete liberalisation of those boundaries, so that they become far wider and the degree to which divergence can be market distorting becomes potentially far greater under what is happening at the moment.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Tim Render: I think we can. The questions around water and diffuse agricultural pollution are live in Wales at the moment. In terms of our regulations under the various water rules, we are some way behind the rest of the UK, and we are looking to take action to ensure that we have effective measures for the management of agricultural pollution.
One of the things, looking to the medium term, is an ability to think about how we do some of the wider regulation: what conditions we attach to future payment regimes; how we link that to the regulatory floor; and things around earned autonomy for more flexibility, in return for clearer, authenticated and demonstrable actions that take account of flexibility while there are, at the same time, clear ways of ensuring and providing assurance that the necessary actions are taken. Those are some of the opportunities that we have in the medium term, adapting some of the regulations, but it is probably through more sophisticated regulation and earned autonomy approaches that we can really provide some of that greater flexibility.
John Davies: Thank you, Mr Goodwill, for the opportunity to comment on this, because obviously regulation has been one of the reasons that Europe has had less favour. Nitrate vulnerable zone regulations are among the most prescriptive and least effective of those that have been implemented by Europe. Let us move away from that. Let us ensure that regulation, when it comes, fills the gaps and is effective. Anybody who thinks that they can farm by date will fail. It is vital that we farm by the ground conditions. We have a changing climate here, and we have to respond to that. We have to evolve, adapt and work effectively to reduce the number of incidents. It is coming down slowly, but we need to move more rapidly to reduce it. It is vital that we get on top of that through effective, proper, reasonable regulation.
Deidre Brock
Q
Tim Render: I agree with that. Equally, there are some measures that need to operate across the UK for trade and operators. The red meat levy is a very good example of something that needs to be applied at the UK level, but from a devolved Administration perspective, where some of those powers operate at a UK level, that needs to happen with our consent and agreement. Yes, let us agree a common approach to something—that is very often the best approach—but, for us, those sorts of concurrent powers need to be with consent.
Dr Fenwick: To give an example of the sorts of divergence at a very simplistic level that will potentially have an impact in the coming months, the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020 received Royal Assent the day before we left the EU. That effectively cuts and pastes EU payment regulations back into domestic legislation. However, one section of the Act allows devolved regions—this relates primarily to Scotland—to exceed those financial ceilings that are effectively derived from EU-set ceilings.
Within hours or minutes, effectively, of our leaving the EU, we have the potential for financial divergence that would increase the difference between the average payments received by a Scottish farmer and a Welsh farmer, which is already in the tens of thousands, potentially to far more. That relates to the Bew review, which has given lots of additional money to Scotland. Previously, that money could not be paid to farmers. The new legislation allows them to diverge—I go back to that word—from the ceilings that are set in the legislation.
John Davies: We have a very clear ambition for a policy made in Wales, where we see the productivity and the environment meshing together, underpinned by a stability pillar that will give us real opportunities. We are ambitious for the future. There is real opportunity out there to make policy in Wales, for Wales, by Wales.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that we are at the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Gareth Morgan gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Soil Association and we have until 1 pm for this session. Welcome to the Committee. Please introduce yourself.
Gareth Morgan: I am Gareth Morgan and I represent the Soil Association, a charity engaged in sustainable food and farming. We also run some certification of organic agriculture and sustainable forestry.
The Chair
The acoustics in this room are appalling. Can you speak up and project your voice?
Gareth Morgan: Yes, will do.
George Eustice
Q
Gareth Morgan: Unsurprisingly, we were delighted to see that addition, which we thought was a grave omission last time round. There was a rather arcane debate around whether soil health was a private or a public good. What matters is that we achieve better soils, because we know that there is a soils crisis. Indeed, Michael Gove highlighted that in some of his speeches.
The other problem, as you allude to, Minister, is that soil is highly geographically variable and contains many different parameters, from organic matter in terms of the ability to sequester carbon to soil biodiversity, productive capability and the rest of it. That challenge has made it very difficult to set standard provisions around soils for farmers to follow. I suspect that that side of it will probably be best developed through the 25-year plan in the Environment Bill, so in a sense the Agriculture Bill is the place where the tools for farmers to improve their soils can be placed, and where the provisions around what sorts of soils we need, and where, will need a lot of research and geographical specificity. Farmers will need assistance to understand their soils, so a top-down approach to the same soils everywhere is probably not the right way to go.
One exception is that the concept of a steady increase in the carbon content of soils seems to be widely accepted. I think the UK is in the “4 per 1000” club on this, which is around a steady percentage increase of organic matter in soils. That will be a useful single aspiration for farmers and policy makers to coalesce around.
George Eustice
Q
Gareth Morgan: The lack of knowledge should not be used as an excuse to not do anything. I agree with you that far. In terms of understanding at the field level what a particular farmer needs to do, I do not think I agree that that is always obvious. You might have shared the same train journey that I had today from Bristol. Going through Wiltshire and looking at the waterlogged soil-laden water lying on the fields, so that it is pouring into the River Avon at the moment, is a signal to me. That is not necessarily the fault of the farmer, but there is a gap between academic understanding of what soils should be like and what is happening in practice in the fields. There is a huge need for farmers to better understand what is appropriate on their farms. That will involve a fair bit of Government investment to help them in that process.
George Eustice
Q
Gareth Morgan: Yes. The Soil Association is rooted in the philosophy that the essence of successful farming lies in the soil. There has been a welcome resurgence of interest in soil over the last few years. It is not an exclusive club; there are things such as minimum tillage, which is not necessarily an organic philosophy. A lot of farmers are increasingly focused on soil as the central organising principle of productivity, pest resistance, carbon sequestration and biodiversity, but that recognition still has a long way to go. I do not think organic is the only way in which that can be achieved, but it is one simple codified way of farming that we know builds on that understanding of soil and organic matter in soil.
George Eustice
Q
Gareth Morgan: No, I would not say that. That is why there is increasing use of the term “agroecology”, to suggest that there is a more inclusive approach to sustainable farming. Organic is a great codified way of doing that and guaranteeing to the farmer and the consumer that the farmer is following a particular practice, but agroecology is wider in the sense that it incorporates practices such as mixed farming, where there is a mixture, or ruminant livestock and arable so there is a natural fertility cycle. It incorporates a focus on reducing pesticides—it would be fantastic in the Agriculture Bill to have some target for the reduction of pesticides as an aspiration—and a focus on leguminous plants, to increase nitrogen naturally, to avoid the use of artificial nitrogen. We are going to have to wean ourselves off artificial nitrogen at some point if we are to meet our carbon targets, because we have not found an alternative way to make it. All those practices can be incorporated into conventional farming systems.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Gareth Morgan: There is a soils crisis, which is expressed in a number of different ways. It is probably slightly alarmist to talk about a certain number of years of soils left, which is quite graphic and gets people engaged in the topic, but that will be different in different places. Soil can regenerate, so we should not look at it as a one-way trajectory of decline; we know ways in which soil can be recovered. The decline in organic matter in soil is a key dimension of that crisis.
The other big element of soil health that has been neglected by the environmental side as much as by the farming side, is biodiversity in soil. I assume that is as simple as the fact that it is below the ground, and therefore you do not see it. I heard an interesting statistic the other day: in a typical sheep field, the weight of creatures underneath the field far exceeds that of the animals on the surface, whether as simple as worms or down to bacterial and fungi. The problem is that, because we do not see it, it is not that immediately obvious to us. It becomes obvious through things such as feeding birds in the winter—the number of lapwings on the fields. If there are no invertebrates in the fields, there will not be birds above them. Getting back to a sense of the biodiversity of soil will be a good way to re-engage with it.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Gareth Morgan: I absolutely agree with the latter point. We may come on to the issue of trade equality later in the discussion, I imagine. There is simply no point in us exporting our production by forcing up standards here when we are importing products that are produced to low environmental and climate-change standards from other places. We urgently need to find a way to address that, because the tsunami of change that is about to hit farming in this country will not be able to withstand that, so we have to find a way of addressing that issue.
I do not think that should be used as an excuse for not starting to tackle some of these big crises, such as the soil crisis. It would be useful in the Bill, for example, for the food security provision to talk about things such as soil as part of food security. At the minute, it is very focused on economic factors. If we do not sustain the simple biological and physical nature of farming over this period, we will not have food security. That is one place where it would be useful to put this in the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Gareth Morgan: I do not think anyone has found a simple solution to this, other than a protectionist model, which is what we are trying to get away from. The most interesting example I have heard is talk from Dieter Helm at the Natural Capital Committee about some kind of carbon border adjustment. It would seem ridiculous for us to import products from countries that are not signed up to the Paris treaty and may be subsidising fossil fuels for their farmers in order that they can produce cheaply, and for those products to be on the market in this country, going against products that properly factor in the carbon price. It is not going to be easy to get around, but we cannot duck it. A number of groups have put forward potential amendments to the Bill to try to address some of that, and that also needs to be reflected in the trade Bills. Just ignoring it, as is being done at the minute, is not satisfactory for our farmers or our environment.
Danny Kruger
Q
Gareth Morgan: I think the Bill is a good step, in terms of providing the toolkit to give farmers the financial assistance to provide some of those public goods. The environmental land management scheme seems to have got quite bogged down over the past couple of years because it has been trying to get round this issue of working to more outcome-focused schemes, rather than just prescriptions for farmers, but there is a reason why we ended up doing prescriptions, although they are very frustrating for farmers to work to, because it is a list of rules that you have to follow and that is not a very creative way of doing things. The reason we do that is that you can audit them and specify them, even if it is a bit rough and ready, whereas saying to a farmer, “We would like to see 10 pairs of skylarks on your land. You decide how you do it,” is quite open-ended and not that helpful to the farmer. Hopefully, ELMS is the place where we will find a way of reconciling those two conflicting priorities.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
Gareth Morgan: One reason I joined the Soil Association —I was previously working at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—was the sense that you can do quite a lot for particular things, such as bird numbers on farms, without affecting the underlying sustainability of farming operations. I do not think the Bill deliberately plays into that, but it could be an unintentional consequence. There is a whole series of public goods that a farmer could choose to provide, but—particularly if we are going to lose things such as cross-compliance now, which is the basic way to encourage a farmer to look across the whole farm—there is a considerable danger that we will just focus on the easy or obvious bits, such as doing a flower margin or some skylark plots on a farm, and not really think about why the ecological operation of a farm is not satisfactory.
At the moment, there are two distinct dangers. First, some farms might opt into the public goods system while other farms will decide to farm to the market, especially if they are competing with foreign imports produced to lower standards. Secondly, even on individual farms, a farmer might be tempted to look for a particular thing that can be done that will be good for the environment, but neglect what is happening on the rest of the farm, for example the state of the soil across the whole farm. The whole-farm approach should be at the centre of the Agriculture Bill, but it is not at the moment.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Gareth Morgan: It is fantastic that the NFU has taken the position of committing to an early net zero target for the agriculture and land use sector. That has shifted the debate enormously. Establishing the route map by which you do that is quite difficult. I am not entirely sure that a net zero clause in the Bill is the right way to go about it.
In several sectors—such as transport and energy generation—we have a clear idea about what that route map needs to be. Land use will be much more complicated. We do not know all the answers yet—for example, in the current argument about red meat, we are veering a different way each month. Setting a clear trajectory in farming to net zero in law could be counter-productive. The easiest way for us to go net zero in terms of land use in the UK is to stop farming and plant trees everywhere and import food off our balance sheet. That would be madness, but it could be an inadvertent consequence if we get the wrong sort of legal fix into law. I think the Bill could be more explicit about net zero and the need to achieve it, but we need to be careful about the way in which we phrase that.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Gareth Morgan: That is a well-made point. In food, demand and production need to be balanced. That is true not only of organic produce; it is a general point.
One key point is that it would be helpful if the Bill recognised the specific contribution that organic farming can make against a whole range of public goods. Rather than inventing a complicated system in parallel with organics—for example, saying, “If a farm satisfies the carbon criteria, the biodiversity criteria, the rotations and the rest of it, then we will make a payment”—let us just cut to the chase and say that it makes sense for there to be some kind of organic maintenance payment to recognise additional public goods that are there but cannot be recovered through the market. I think that would in some sense help with the conversion issue, because if farmers are clear that if they move to an organic model they will be rewarded, both by the market and for the public goods that they provide in the longer term, then that will give them that level of certainty.
Regarding conversion, you are right—I think there needs to be caution around doing that, because in the past we have had examples of where there has been over-conversion to organic ahead of the market being ready to be there. So I think the focus on some sort of organic maintenance payment in ELMS is absolutely vital.
There is a role for help with conversion, but it may not be in terms of straightforward payments during that period. It may be through things like the ancillary productivity payments or some of these other issues that are acting as a barrier to conversion. For example, bringing livestock back on to arable farms will be quite a difficult operation, and most people who convert to organic would need to do that if they are an arable farm. So help with the process of establishing those things might be the way that one could assist in that process.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Q
Gareth Morgan: At the end of the day, there will have to be some sort of whole-farm planning process. I am sure the Minister has thoughts about this: there is an aspiration to reduce our transaction costs, around the amount of advice and so on that schemes involve. I think there is a limit to how far that can go, so at the end of the day I suspect that any farmer who is receiving substantial public good payments will need to have some kind of system of working with an adviser around a whole-farm plan, which will enable them to put the measures into place, particularly for something like soil.
There are general measures that are great for wildlife and the environment, like having flower margins around fields, having rough grass margins and the rest of it; they will be useful anywhere. With something like soil, I cannot really see how that can be done without the support of an agronomist, or a specialist, or someone helping the farmer and working on the nature of the soil on that particular farm. That need not be done by Government advisers; it could be done by certifiers, or private suppliers and so on. But without that level of support being built into the system, it is quite hard to see how farmers will be able to make the transition that they might want to make on their farm to things like sustainable soil management practices.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Q
Gareth Morgan: I am quite pragmatic about where those targets should lie and if it is not in the Agriculture Bill, there are other places; I have already alluded to the potential for both the Environment Bill and the 25-year plan to be the place where those targets and metrics could reside. It is disappointing that at the moment the Environment Bill does not have a soil chapter, because it would seem to me logical for that to be the place where, say, a target for increasing organic matter in soils at a national level would reside.
Regarding the targets for an individual farm, clearly it would not be sensible for those to be iterated in this Bill, because they might have to be done farm by farm. However, some provision for making sure that farmers are clear what they are working to on the soils on their farm over a particular period will be vital. I do not know whether some provision can be made in the Bill for there to be that level of assessment before public good payments are made on a particular farm, for example, because you are right: unless the farmer is clear about their current resource or what the expectation is about where they will be going, it is going to be quite—and this may be one of the reasons why soils were not previously itemised in the Bill, because of this precise problem about that geographical specificity.
Miss Dines
Q
Gareth Morgan: I think a soil organic matter target nationally is realistic. I think there is a fair consensus that increasing organic matter in soil ticks so many boxes that that is something that would be useful. That does not necessarily help the individual farmer to know what needs to be done on their farm. There is a good national soil survey, so there is good spatial information about soils that we could be using as part of this process, so it does not all have to be done from a base of no knowledge.
George Eustice
Q
Given the complexity of the issue, is there not a danger that if you are waiting to try to identify the target, you end up effectively delaying action—the worst of all worlds? Does it perhaps matter less that there is some sort of prescribed target, and more that you encourage and incentivise good soil husbandry from year one as best you can with the knowledge that you have? You can measure trends. You can get a sense of whether the trends that matter are moving in the right direction from the interventions you are doing. Is not that perhaps a better way to approach these things than some kind of prescriptive target?
Gareth Morgan: I think you are right, in the sense that the best must not be the enemy of the good, and there is plenty that can be done on soils tomorrow. I do not think I agree that the absence of a target is something that we should be content with in the long term, particularly at the Government level. Targets have been useful in focusing the attention of policy makers on results. The farmland bird recovery target, although the bane of many people’s life, was useful in terms of focusing attention on what could be done to reverse the decline of farmland birds.
I think national targets around soils would be helpful in terms of focusing and attracting funding. Ultimately the Treasury is going to come and say, “I can see you are doing lots of interesting things on your farms; what, actually, are you benefiting, in terms of the natural capital account for the country?” Unless we can go back to the Treasury and say, “This investment of £2 billion or £3 billion has achieved the following things over this period,” I suspect the money will dry up pretty quickly.
George Eustice
Q
Are you content with the revised organics regime that we are about to inherit from the EU, as it stands, or would you be interested in us using these powers to make specific changes that might make the future UK organics regime work better?
Gareth Morgan: That is a little bit off my area, so I will not speculate too much. The Soil Association is only one part of a very broad organic movement, so there are a number of players who, I think, will want to come back. I think the general feeling was that the provisions in the Bill provide the right enabling starting point for creating a domestic structure around organic regulation.
The one concern that I have heard expressed is that, given we have quite a collaborative model for developing organic standards and lots of players in this country, building that level of engagement with the various players and consultation into that process will be important. At the European level, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, or IFOAM, has been involved in the ongoing development of organic regulation. We will clearly need to have something similar at a domestic level to ensure that everyone, from the farmers to the certifiers to consumers, has a stake in the development of the regime.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Gareth Morgan: Taking the first point, it does feel that there is still a gap in the policy and legislative architecture in agriculture. We have “Health and Harmony”, which sets out a good, new, broad trajectory for agriculture, and we have quite a technical, nitty-gritty enabling Bill here in terms of saying, “Here are the tools that can be deployed to achieve things.” At the moment there is not anything knitting all that together to say, “What are food and farming for? Do we have any sense of what the right model might be?” I suspect that is perhaps a bit of a legacy from having had the CAP, which was a prescriptive and sometimes flawed model of European farming. We have almost moved away from that to being afraid to say we have any preferences at all. We have a series of tools and a broad aspiration that farming should be good for the environment, and then the market does the rest.
The reason for putting down a marker on public health was to say that food and farming are not just about a commercial transaction; it is of huge national importance whether people have secure and healthy food supplies and access to the right sort of food and whether the farmer is able to get a just return from the market. Some of those things are touched on in the Bill, but it almost feels like there needs to be something right at the front of the Bill to say what all this is for, as opposed to, “What should we pay farmers for and how?” It feels a bit too fast. That does not necessarily have to come in the Bill, but it has to come somewhere, to our mind. Again, that is where we would say that a presumption in favour of a move to a more agroecological way of thinking about farming probably would sit. Equally, it is the place where the national food strategy would fit in to say that food is more than just a market transaction for consumers.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Gareth Morgan: I would tread very warily in that minefield.
Daniel Zeichner
You do not have to answer if you do not want to, but the fact that you are treading warily tells us what we need to know. Thank you.
George Eustice
Q
Gareth Morgan: I should first say that other certifiers are available—for example, our colleagues in Organic Farmers and Growers. It is a competitive market. I am not from the certification side of the organisation and so I will follow up with written evidence on that point, if that is acceptable.
The Chair
Thank you. If there are no further questions from the Committee, I thank you, on behalf of the Committee, for giving your evidence, Mr Morgan.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
Agriculture Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 13th February 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 February 2020 - (13 Feb 2020)
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from NFU Scotland, Quality Meat Scotland and the Scottish Government. Thank you for coming. The panel will finish at 2.30 pm. Could you introduce yourselves for the record?
Alan Clarke: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Alan Clarke. I am chief executive of Quality Meat Scotland.
George Burgess: Good afternoon. I am George Burgess. I am the head of food and drink at the Scottish Government.
Jonnie Hall: My name is Jonnie Hall. I am director of policy for NFU Scotland.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Q
Jonnie Hall: I am happy to start. I can quote Mr Eustice back at him and say that the CAP has largely “incentivised inertia”—a phrase he has used many times. We agree. The bluntness of area-based payments has not driven innovation or productivity, or indeed delivered on environmental challenges.
In that respect, we see the departure from the EU and from the CAP as an opportunity to develop bespoke agricultural policy tailored to the individual needs of the devolved Administrations. We have some capacity for that already, in the fact that we have four different settlements of pillar 1 and pillar 2 under the CAP, but we are nevertheless constrained by an awful lot of bureaucracy and by the rules and regulations around mapping, inspections, penalties and so on.
It is vital for us to take the opportunity and for Scotland to be allowed, under the devolved nature of agricultural policy development and delivery, to develop its own suite of schemes and measures that fit the needs and profile of Scottish agriculture, which is significantly different from that of the rest of the UK and, in particular, England. That is absolutely right and, therefore, this provides us with an opportunity.
George Burgess: The Scottish Government position, as I am sure all Committee members will know, has not been in favour of Brexit. We believe that continued membership of the single market and customs union is the best way forward on economic, social and environmental grounds. That includes on the common agricultural policy.
Obviously, there will be areas in the common agricultural policy that are not necessarily to our liking. Work has been under way in Scotland, under the “Stability and Simplicity” consultation, to identify, in the short term, any areas where some improvement could be made to the common agricultural policy. That might be around issues such as mapping and penalties, as Mr Hall has mentioned. We are working, through a farming and food production future policy group, to look at longer-term policy in Scotland.
Alan Clarke: I have a couple of points from Quality Meat Scotland. This gives us an opportunity to look outside our normal markets. Currently, 69% of Scottish red meat is being sold in the rest of the UK, outside of Scotland, and 10% goes internationally. It gives us an opportunity to continue to build on that. To do that, protection of our protected geographical indicators is essential.
In addition, we need to have no reduction of standards of any other imports coming into the country, to make sure that we have a level playing field for our food producers. We would like to see transparency of price reporting throughout the supply chain, to enable us to make better decisions across that area. As you will perhaps hear later from me, we have been working closely with the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and Hybu Cig Cymru on levy repatriation work. We think there is a lot of work that we could build on across the three nations, if not the four nations.
George Eustice
Q
George Burgess: The Scottish Government’s approach through the “Stability and Simplicity” consultation is that, for the period from now until 2024, we will essentially retain the features of the current CAP system with some scope for simplification, improvement and piloting. Beyond that, we are open to looking at a more radical reform of the policy. That is the approach we are taking through our future policy group, which includes representatives from the farming industry, food production and environmental groups, so that is the forum for considering the longer-term changes in Scotland. Whether it retains area-based payments or moves to some other system, or a combination of the two, remains to be seen.
Jonnie Hall: I support that, in the sense that area-based payments are far too blunt and do not deliver the objectives that we all aspire to, not only in supporting agricultural incomes and productivity but in addressing challenges such as climate change, biodiversity and so on. The sooner we move to an approach that is more action- based than area-based, the better. However, we are in alignment with the Scottish Government in the sense that from 2021 onwards, we will be venturing into uncharted territory in many ways, given the changes in our operating environment, trading issues and other areas. The ability to retain direct income support that offers some stability in the interim is key. We are absolutely in alignment about change, but the key questions are about the pace of that change and how we manage it.
We note with interest what is happening in England and the Bill’s proposals for phasing out direct support. Of course, that would be inappropriate and inapplicable in a Scottish context, so we need the devolved capacity to do things differently. The direction of travel is very much the same and the landing space is probably the same as well, but we have to consider the pace of that change and recognise the challenges and issues that are particularly pertinent to Scottish agriculture.
George Eustice
Q
George Burgess: No, I do not think so. The Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill, which implements the stability and simplicity approach for the period between now and 2024, is currently before the Scottish Parliament. I have mentioned the future policy group, which aims to bring forward proposals by the summer of this year. That is the point when we will begin looking at the transition—things that may be piloted between now and 2024—so we are definitely not looking at a sharp cliff-edge transition in 2024.
Hopefully within that time period, we will gain a clearer understanding of our trading regime with Europe and the rest of the world. At the moment, it is frankly quite hard to work out what we should be doing with sectors such as sheepmeat, given that we do not know what the situation with our largest export markets will be.
Jonnie Hall: A number of interests in Scotland have suggested that there should be a sunset clause in the piece of legislation that Mr Burgess has referred to, so that it comes to a definitive end in 2024. However, we would not agree with that, because it would potentially create a cliff edge where we would go off the stability elements that we have talked about and into the unknown. We want to avoid that; we need to be able to adjust to and reflect on the circumstances of the time, and it is right that the Scottish Government have the ability to do so under the legislation that is going through the Scottish Parliament.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Q
Alan Clarke: It would be a disaster for the Scottish red meat industry. The Scots were pioneers of quality assurance. Scotland was the first country in the world to set up whole of life, whole of supply chain quality assurance, and that gives a unique selling point to our world-class products of Scotch beef PGI, Scotch lamb PGI and specially selected pork. For any diluted product to come to market and be able to compete directly—as far as I am concerned, that has no place on the supermarket shelves.
George Burgess: I suspect you will find a very large measure of agreement at this table. The Scottish Government are very concerned at the prospect that future trade agreements could allow for a dilution of standards.
Jonnie Hall: It is also worth adding that the produce of Scotland—commodities is the wrong word—is not about, “Stack it high, sell it low.” We are not going to compete on world markets. We are not a volume producer. We are based on the authenticity and the provenance of our product, and the welfare standards and environmental standards behind that. If we expose Scottish agriculture to cheaper imports of substandard production methods and so on, we will blow large sections of Scottish agriculture out of the water. That will have significant impacts on the agricultural industry itself, but also, more importantly, on the wider issues around rural communities and the environment and habitats that Scottish agriculture underpins with its extensive grazing systems and so on.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Jonnie Hall: It is quite clear, in many ways, in the sense that the development and delivery of agricultural schemes and policy, in terms of what outcomes we want to achieve from managing our land in an agricultural sense, should absolutely be devolved, and is today. However, when you are looking at the operation of the internal UK market, we need to be able to operate to the same rules in a very transparent and open way across the United Kingdom.
Our worry and concern is that a lot of the discussions from outside of the Government appear to be about common frameworks, but we are unsighted on that. We are not seeing what common frameworks might look like. More important to me is the governance of those common frameworks going forward. Like or loathe the European Commission, at least it acted as some sort of referee when it came to compliance with regulation, standards and so on across member states and within the UK. If we are going to preserve the internal UK market, as Alan Clarke has pointed out is so important to Scottish agriculture, we need to ensure that we are all playing to the same rulebook on a whole range of issues. We are unsighted on an awful lot of that. We are still trying to flush out of Governments—plural—the actions and discussions that are going on.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Q
The Chair
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. We are halfway through and a number of Members want to ask questions, so I would be grateful if you could be short and precise.
Fay Jones
Certainly. Mr Hall, your counterparts in Wales are happy with the pace at which the Welsh Government are bringing forward their equivalent Agriculture Bill. Are you content with the pace of the Scottish Government?
Jonnie Hall: If anything, we would like the pace to be a wee bit quicker. As I said earlier, we recognise that we are all venturing into an unknown world, in terms of the operating environment in which we will find ourselves, so it is probably more pragmatic not to give ourselves distinct deadlines. I mentioned the proposal for a sunset clause in the current legislation, which might suggest a deadline for new policy to be put in place for the longer term. We do not want to be a hostage to fortune on that. Certain sectors of Scottish agriculture might find it particularly bumpy in 2021, 2022 and possibly 2023. We want to see change happen sooner rather than later, but let us not push ourselves into a situation where we must accept change but that change does not take us in the right direction.
Fay Jones
Q
Jonnie Hall: We have had a beef calf payment since 2005 under the CAP. There are strict rules on how much money can be spent on that. It is about how important the suckler herd is to the socioeconomic fabric of rural Scotland. It certainly has not driven production, because suckler cow numbers have continued to decline over that period. If anything, it has slowed the decline down, so I would not call it a production support. It recognises the additional cost of suckler production in our hills, in particular, and therefore it is a very important piece of the policy toolkit. It enables the retention of suckler beef in Scotland, and that has significant implications further downstream and into the supply chain, as I am sure Alan Clarke would agree.
Alan Clarke: Absolutely.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Q
Jonnie Hall: In our evidence we cite a number of areas. If you look at the Scottish Bill going through the Scottish Parliament and the Bill that you are considering now, there are clear overlaps, not just on animal traceability issues but marketing standards and other things. Many of those issues are devolved, but our concern goes back to the operation of the internal UK market. It is quite right that those things are devolved, but how do we ensure that there is consistency in application of those devolved issues across the United Kingdom? If there is not consistency, there has to be at least co-ordination of those things. It is right that the capacities are devolved. It is right that the Scottish Bill is doing what it does and the UK Bill does what it does, but it is about where those things might rub together to create problems in the UK internal market. There are a number of examples in there. [Interruption.] I am not saying that it will happen, but we need to have consistency if not co-ordination across the UK.
George Burgess: From the Scottish Government’s perspective, the Bill is something of a curate’s egg. The provisions that we like include the red meat levy provision, which we played a large part in developing at the outset. We very much welcome that, and we would like to see a commitment from the UK Government to its swift implementation.
Other provisions in the Bill on food security and fertilisers make a great deal of sense, but we have some difficulties with others, including the livestock information provision, which has already been mentioned. Again, the concern is really about governance and the appropriate role of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments.
Similarly, the organics clause to some extent recognises devolved competences, but we are concerned about the power that is given to the Secretary of State to act in devolved areas without seeking the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Other concerns of long standing from the previous Bill relate to producer organisations, the World Trade Organisation agreement on agriculture, and fair dealing in supply chains, where we have a very different view on devolved competence from DEFRA.
Alan Clarke: I will pick two, Deidre, because I am conscious of time. In relation to the LIP system that we talked about, I think there has always been a history, if there has ever been a disease breakout, that everybody has worked extremely well together and come together and shared all the information. I think it is important that that is retained and that anything that is developed in England must read across to the rest of the UK. ScotEID, again, has been leading the way on that in Scotland. There must be those links. I know the meetings happen regularly every month with the devolved associations and the developers of it, but the mechanism that George talked about is one to consider.
The second issue is levy repatriation. I have been working very closely with AHDB and HCC towards getting a scheme of operation, which can be put to Ministers, showing what the long-term solution for levy repatriation would look like. We have identified, using that scheme, the numbers involved. It would mean that every year, £1.2 million of producer levy that is currently trapped in England would come back to Scotland, and £1.1 million of Welsh levy currently trapped in England would come back to Scotland—to Wales. Apologies—Wyn will not forgive me for that one. Essentially, the scheme has been agreed by the three levy bodies. It has now gone to each of the boards, and we hope to be in a position to put that to the Ministers in a short period of time.
Behind the scenes, we have been looking at the interim solution of the ring-fenced fund—the £2 million that has been ring-fenced for the benefit of levy payers in England, Wales and Scotland. We hope to make an announcement in the next few weeks on greater working relationships between the three levy bodies. This gives us a really good opportunity. We would like to see a date put into the Agriculture Bill to say when the legislation must be passed and the scheme be in operation by. The three levy bodies are working to a date of 1 April 2021 for a long-term solution to be in place, meaning that this is the last operational year of the ring-fenced fund that we will be coming into in April. It would be nice to have that enshrined in law.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Jonnie Hall: First, I do not think the likes of game—pheasant, grouse and, indeed, wild deer, because we have farmed deer as well—should be governed as agricultural activity. The husbandry is not the same. They are wild animals. The habitat may be managed in their interests, but nevertheless they are not livestock that are bought, sold and managed in the same way as cattle, sheep, pigs and so on, so I do not see the benefit of that.
I do see, particularly in the Scottish context, the benefits of multiple land use in the same vicinity—the same land—such as having grouse moor management and managing wild deer populations in the interests of conservation, as much as in the interests of stalking and venison, alongside extensive grazing systems for the delivery of key habitats. That is one thing, but we will also be thinking increasingly about the preservation and restoration of our peatlands in the effort to tackle climate change. Grazing management will become a more fundamental issue—and extensive grazing management in Scotland—specifically for its public benefits and public good delivery, rather than just the production of an agricultural product.
That debate is an important one, but at this moment in time I do not view those things as agricultural activities. They can be supported through other means, because they are essentially environmental delivery mechanisms as well.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Q
Jonnie Hall: Again, at the risk of repeating myself, the preservation of the internal UK market is vital to the interests of Scottish agriculture. Alan Clarke mentioned some statistics about red meat. Our most important market is the rest of the UK, but we want to grow markets beyond that. I have often referred to the spending power within the M25, where we are sitting right now, as our bread and butter. That remains key, so we are very mindful of anything that rubs against the free flow of not just finished agricultural produce, but livestock. If I were a beef producer in the Scottish borders and wanted to buy a bull from Northumberland, I would not think it a smart move to operate different animal traceability systems and have all sorts of checks and balances at Berwick. In theory, that could be the outcome if we do not get these pieces of legislation to align.
Dave Doogan
Q
Jonnie Hall: I do not think it is a huge deal for produce leaving Scotland and going to Northern Ireland, but it is a very big issue for Northern Irish colleagues, who obviously want to access markets in GB—the rest of the UK. That is a real conundrum, in the sense that regulatory alignment with the EU will clearly be a vital issue on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. If that has implications for regulatory alignment with the rest of the UK and the EU, I can foresee lots of headaches and issues with that.
From what I see, we are moving more and more towards the potential of triangular trading agreements between ourselves, the EU and non-EU countries—for example, those in North America. There clearly has to be some sort of tension point at some level, because the UK Government have made it clear that there will not be regulatory alignment with the EU, although there will be equivalence—whatever that might mean—in order to secure deals with non-EU countries. That puts in doubt or jeopardy our potential to trade both with the EU and with other countries at the same time. That is a major concern for us.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Q
Jonnie Hall: I think it is a very important point for the future direction of agricultural policy anywhere. I would say at the outset that blunt area payments reflect neither activity nor outcomes; they are simply a ticket to receive an income by declaring an area of land and doing some compliance. We really need to work on a system that recognises the actions that deliver an outcome; you then pay for the actions that deliver the outcomes you require. If it were exclusively about delivering outcomes, that is a very risky situation for farmers and crofters in Scotland. We probably need a combination of both systems, and we are piloting various things in Scotland—for example, an outcome-based approach to agri-environment in different parts of the country.
It is about actions on climate change and so forth. How do we encourage more efficient production systems, soil management and extensive grazing systems? That is within the gift of the farmer or crofter. What is not in their gift is the precise outcome that we get from that. We might think that we will get the right outcome, but we do not 100% know. There are lots of forces at play in agricultural land management, and the risks need to be managed carefully. The key thing is to move away from area-based payments in the first place, with actions then delivering the outcomes and objectives that you want.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for coming along this afternoon.
Examination of Witness
George Monbiot gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from George Monbiot. Welcome to the Committee. This panel will finish at 3 pm. Would you introduce yourself, please?
George Monbiot: Thank you. I am an environmental campaigner and journalist.
James Morris
Q
George Monbiot: I think it really important to tighten the definition and to stick with, basically, the classical definition of non-rivalrous and non-excludable. There is potential for slippage within the wording of the Bill, for example into food production that does not fit the definition. We should basically also be funding public goods that are additional and which are not going to be delivered anyway.
We should be very careful not to use subsidies as a substitute for regulation. There is a real danger in saying, “We will put all this on a voluntary basis and we will pay people to do the right thing,” rather than saying, “You may not do the wrong thing.” I feel that there have already been a lot of failures in monitoring and enforcement of cross-compliance under the current subsidy regime. If we are not careful, we could see those failures become a lot worse.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
George Monbiot: One of my aims would be to reduce the area of land used for agriculture. All agriculture is a radical simplification of ecosystems, until you get to the point at which it is so extensive that it is not really agriculture. The Knepp Castle Estate, for example, is a wonderful example of rewilding, but I worked out that if we were to universalise that across much of the UK, we would need to cut our meat consumption by about 99.5%—that is not a great example of agriculture. Until you get to that level of extensification, you are really removing huge numbers of species and a huge amount of potential carbon storage that would otherwise be there.
In this country, we suffer grievously from what I call “agricultural sprawl”—large areas of land used to produce small amounts of food. It gets to the point at which, for instance, sheep farming in the uplands, according to my estimates, occupies roughly 4 million hectares—almost as much land as all our arable and horticultural production put together—yet produces roughly 1% of our food by calories and roughly 2% by protein. That is a remarkably wasteful use of land, which could be much better used for carbon storage through regeneration and rewilding, and for the great resuscitation of ecosystems and the recovery of our very put-upon wild species.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
George Monbiot: That is a very good question. The Bill discusses both natural heritage and cultural heritage. Both are very important values and neither should be dismissed, but there is an assumption in a great deal of rural thinking in Britain that they are one and the same. We have to acknowledge that they are often in direct conflict. Maintaining sheep on the land is highly damaging to ecosystems, but getting rid of sheep farmers can be highly damaging to local cultures and languages. We have to see that a balance should be struck.
We have so often fudged the issue, the classic example being the world heritage bid in the Lake district, where they were assumed to be one and the same. It is always resolved in favour of farming, because farming is assumed to be good for ecosystems, but in the great majority of cases it is not—the best thing to do for an ecosystem is to withdraw farming from it. But because we do not acknowledge that there is a conflict, we do not produce a balance that ever favours wildlife.
Mr Goodwill
Q
“farming is no longer essential to human survival”.
In contradiction to what the Soil Association told us this morning—that we should have more mixed farming and more livestock, allowing soils to be improved by the use of natural manures—you suggest that we should abandon livestock production, particularly on the uplands, and plant trees and rewild large areas of our country. Is that a correct appraisal?
George Monbiot: That is broadly correct. One thing to say is that in the uplands there is almost no mixed farming. In fact, it would be very hard for mixed farming to be established in the uplands, which are very unsuitable on the whole for arable. In the lowlands, if we were to reintroduce mixed farming, at the microlevel that could be a very good thing by comparison to the arable deserts of East Anglia, but we would see a major decline in total yield. There is very little research on what that decline would be, but everyone can more or less accept that we will see that decline.
The global conundrum we are in is that roughly half the global population is dependent on NPK, to put it crudely, and certainly on nitrogen and other artificial fertilisers. If we were to take those out of the system, we would have mass starvation—huge numbers of people would die. However, we are aware that applications of N, P and K and others are causing global disaster: they contribute significantly to climate breakdown, soil loss, downstream pollution, air pollution and a whole load of other issues. We cannot live with it and cannot live without it. We are in an astonishing and very difficult conundrum. If we were to switch—as the Soil Association recommends and as my instincts would tell us to do—to mixed rotation or organic farming, we would not be able to produce enough food. It is as simple as that.
How do we get out of that conundrum? I see some hope in factory-produced food—microbial protein and cultured meat. That could be the only way of reconciling environmental needs of future generations and the rest of life on Earth with the need to feed people alive today and in future. We need to find ways of feeding the planet without devouring it. That could be the way.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
George Monbiot: I do not know whether this would fit in the remit of the Bill, but I would certainly favour banning driven grouse shooting, which is a major cause of peatland erosion. I would look at the strongest possible measures we could introduce for the restoration of blanket bogs. I would, at the very least, commission new research into the impact of agriculture on peatlands, and whether we are better off without agriculture on peatlands in terms of the carbon budget.
There is a paper in Food Policy by Durk Nijdam that points out the extraordinary levels of carbon opportunity cost on Welsh farms with high organic soils. He talks in some cases of 640 kg of carbon per kilogram of lamb protein, as a result of the lost opportunity to protect those organic soils, which is a result of farming continuing there. It would be far better in carbon terms not to farm soils, if his research is replicable.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Q
George Monbiot: There are a lot of things we need to save ourselves from at the moment, and the most urgent is climate breakdown and ecological breakdown. Huge tracts of this land are scarcely feeding us at all. There are very large areas of land where you have one sheep per hectare, per 2 hectares or, in some places, per 5 hectares. That is not producing food in any appreciable amount, yet that land could be used to draw down large amounts of carbon, to stop the sixth great extinction in its tracks, for the restoration of wildlife and ecosystems, or to prevent flooding. There is a whole load of ecological goods—public goods—that that land could be delivering, but it is not currently delivering them, because it is producing tiny amounts of food instead. We are probably all against urban sprawl and believe it is a bad thing because it takes up huge amounts of land while delivering not many services for the people who live in a sprawling city. We should be equally concerned about agricultural sprawl, which takes up far more land.
Miss Dines
Q
George Monbiot: I would characterise the Peak park as an ecological disaster area. It is remarkable how little wildlife there is. You can walk all day and see just a handful of birds; I will see more in a suburban garden. We need a completely different approach to managing land like that.
What you can tell the farmers is, “Let’s pay you to do something completely different, such as restoration, rewilding, bringing back the missing species or bringing back the trees.” Where are the trees above around 200 metres in the Peak district and, indeed, most of the uplands of Britain? They simply are not there. This is a disaster. Anyone who visits from another country—someone from Brazil or Indonesia, my friends, tropical forest ecologists—says, “What’s happened here?” They see these places we call our national parks and say, “How can you call that a national park? It’s a sheep ranch.”
By all means let us keep people on the land, but let us use public money to pay them to do something completely different. Let us face it: there would not be any hill farming in this country without public money. It is a loss-making exercise. If we, the public, are going to pay for it, I think we, the public, have a right to determine what we are paying for. We should be paying for public goods, not public harms.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Q
George Monbiot: I think this should be the perspective through which we start to see everything. This is the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced: the breakdown of our life-support systems. The Governments that will be judged favourably by future generations are those that put that issue front and centre. Other things are subsidiary to our survival. It is imperative that we should start favouring a low-carbon diet and use public policy to disfavour a high-carbon diet. Whether through farm subsidies—I think that does play a role—or meat taxes, which I think could also play a role, we should find all the instruments possible to steer and encourage people to reduce the environmental impacts of their diets.
The most important metric here is what scientists call carbon opportunity costs, which is basically, “What could you be doing on that land if you weren’t doing this?” If, for instance, you are producing beef or lamb on this piece of land, what is the carbon opportunity cost of that? What would be the carbon storage if, instead, trees and wild habitats were allowed to return? There has been some new research just published, or a new compilation of research, on Our World in Data showing that when you look at the carbon opportunity costs, those of beef and lamb are massively greater than those of anything else we eat. It is really, really huge. Even when you take food miles into account, they are tiny by comparison to those carbon costs, and that is what we should focus on.
Danny Kruger
Q
George Monbiot: It should certainly not be linked to the public goods agenda; it should not be seen as a public good.
Danny Kruger
Q
My next question is this: do you agree that a grass-fed cattle herd on open pasture in Wiltshire has a net positive effect in terms of carbon capture? I appreciate that you have an argument about opportunity costs—missed opportunities from grazing—but the terrible carbon impact of beef is because of intensively farmed, closely packed cattle—
George Monbiot: No, that is not true at all.
Danny Kruger
Q
George Monbiot: No, that is simply not true. That claim has been made many times, and it is now basically reaching the level of climate denial—climate science denial—because it is so far removed from what the science base actually tells us.
I can pass the papers on to you if you wish. There has been a meta-study done by the Food Climate Research Network that looked at those claims. It investigated 300 sources and found that in none of the cases that it looked at was carbon sequestration in the soil under pasture compensating for carbon losses. The highest level of compensation was 20% to 60% of the overall carbon losses; there is a net loss in every case. The extensive grazing systems also have a higher net loss and a higher carbon opportunity cost than even the intensive grain-fed systems.
There is a paper by Balmford et al in Nature, I believe. There is another one by Blomqvist et al—I think it is in Science of the Total Environment. They show that, paradoxically—unexpectedly, perhaps—intensive systems per kilo of beef produced are less carbon-damaging than extensive systems per kilo, and that is simply because of the amount of land that they occupy.
Deidre Brock
Q
George Monbiot: I would see them as ecological restorers—people who have a different but very rich relationship with the land, bringing back wildlife and ecosystems. We would hopefully see a constant racking-up of ambition as time goes by.
It is hard to universalise it, but there is now quite a big literature on nature-based economies, showing that, certainly in some circumstances, they can employ a lot more people than farm-based economies, even in quite fertile areas. For instance, I was at Gelderse Poort in the Netherlands last year, in an area that was previously dairy and maize farms. For the purposes of creating more room for the river, the dykes were taken a mile or so back from the river and the land was rewilded. The farmers were saying there would be a loss of employment. In fact, it turns out that there was an increase of between five and six times the total employment as a result of the tourists who have come in to see the wildlife, the bed and breakfasts, the cafes and the rest of the things associated with that. The farmers have done very well out of it.
I do not know the answer to whether we can replicate that everywhere, but we should be urgently investigating other new rural economies based around the restoration of wildlife and nature. Given that we are competing here with a loss-making economy—an economy where the farmers would make more money if they took the subsidy and stopped farming—it is not a very steep competition that we have to win if we are to show that nature-based economies are more productive in terms of employment and income.
Fay Jones
Q
George Monbiot: Yes, how did nature survive before humans came along? It is extraordinary, this idea of stewardship and dominion—this idea that humankind has to intervene to protect wildlife and ecosystems. We do not. We can do a lot to encourage the protection and to kick-start things, and we will always need a role as rangers to ensure that there are not too many conflicts between people and ecosystems. However, the idea that we are necessary to create healthy soils and healthy ecosystems—the best thing we can do in the great majority of cases is to remove extractive economies from the land and to let ecosystems recover. We need to bring back missing species, to take down fences, to kick-start woodland in places where there is not a seedbank left and stuff like that, but we need very little human intervention to get a healthy ecosystem going. While farmers are absolutely right to say that they need a healthy ecosystem to sustain their farming, we do not need farming to sustain a healthy ecosystem.
Dave Doogan
Q
George Monbiot: I think it would be a clear distinction between the additionality that public payments for public goods could produce and the regulatory environment. I am not skilled in framing policy, but basically we need to lay down a distinction between, “Here is the list of things that you as a steward of the land are expected to do. That will be a matter of regulation with monitoring and enforcement. For most of those things, you will not get paid,” and, “Here are the additional things that are not being done anyway, for which you will be paid if you do them.” Quite how you draft it to deliver that, I am not sure. Is that a clear enough answer?
Dave Doogan
In terms of those things that you would have them do, are these elements of rewilding or some form of carbon—
George Monbiot: Rewilding, carbon storage, watershed restoration—there is a whole series of additional ecological interventions that you could consider that would clearly fit the notion of public goods, but I worry when I see things like, “Animal welfare will attract public payments.” Surely animal welfare should be something that we legislate for. Hopefully we legislate for ever higher animal welfare standards.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Q
George Monbiot: It can be both. It can be highly productive in producing a handful of crop species and deserted in terms of wildlife. There are large areas of arable land, particularly in East Anglia, where there is little wildlife. We see a lot of nitrate pollution, soil erosion and water pollution. It is not in a good ecological state, even though, thanks to lashings of NPK and lots of pesticides, we are producing a lot of food there.
We must recognise that what is great on one metric is not so great on another. The attempt to pretend that they are one and the same—that agriculture is good for ecosystems and that the more we have, the better it will be for ecosystems—clouds this whole debate. There is an inherent conflict between an extractive economy, which simplifies ecosystems, and the complex, rich ecosystems, with food webs that are both wide and deep, which an ecologist like me wants to see.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Q
George Monbiot: I am afraid I have not seen changes commensurate with the declaration of a climate emergency. This should be front and centre. An emergency is an emergency. We should be maximising mitigation and absorption of carbon from the atmosphere. The Paris agreement asks us for the greatest possible ambition; we do not see that in the Agriculture Bill.
Nadia Whittome
Q
George Monbiot: The public goods agenda is something useful that we can build on. It is a massive improvement on the common agricultural policy, but it must be much more explicit about what public goods are. Carbon storage, as a metric, must run throughout it like a stick of rock, but also ecological restoration—we do not want to make it just about carbon. We want to maximise the recovery of wildlife and ecosystems, which are in such a dire state in this country.
It must be recognised that the ecological difference between farming and not farming, particularly in the uplands, is far greater than the ecological difference between, say, BPS sheep farming and HLS sheep farming, which is very small in ecological terms. Having a cessation of farming in those areas, bringing back many of the missing species and having an ecosystem dominated by trees and other thick vegetation would be massively better, in terms of both carbon and ecology, than a modification of farming in those places.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
Q
George Monbiot: As I say, we should distinguish between environmental improvements and not doing harm. I do not think we should be offering payments for not beating up old ladies. That is the way I see it. Lots of people do not do bad things in society, but they do not get paid for refraining from doing bad things. Keeping soil on your land should be a regulatory requirement. We should not have to pay people to do that; we should say, “You are not allowed to destroy our natural heritage in that way.” But we should pay for bringing in ecosystems that do not currently exist.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of this session. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for your evidence. I apologise to those members of the Committee who would have liked to ask questions. You have answered more questions per minute in half an hour than anybody else. Thank you very much.
Examination of Witness
Professor Bill Keevil gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Bill Keevil from the University of Southampton. We have until 3.30 pm. Will you introduce yourself, please?
Professor Keevil: Good afternoon. I am Professor Bill Keevil, professor of environmental healthcare. I head the microbiology group at the University of Southampton.
James Morris
Q
Professor Keevil: To my mind, food security is the supply of wholesome, nutritious, safe food. Within that the key issue is safety. There has been a lot of discussion this afternoon about whether the UK can provide its own food. If it does not, we have to rely on imports. What is the veracity of checking the safety of those imports?
We made a short written submission to the national food survey—it may have been circulated to you—in which we talked about the microbiological safety of food, particularly from the processing point of view. It deals in particular with the chlorination of food, which has become a very contentious issue in how the UK sees its future trading relationship with countries that use that practice. Currently, the UK follows EU law, with the standing position being that they dislike chlorinating food. Their perspective is not that chlorination poses a toxic chemical risk if you ingest the food; they are more concerned about animal husbandry. As a microbiologist, I would go further and ask the question that most people have ignored until now: does chlorine actually work? Our published research shows that, in fact, it does not.
For more than 100 years, we have relied on the gold standard of examining a sample from patients, the environment or food by culturing it and growing samples in a Petri dish on a nutritious agar medium. If anything grows, something is still alive; if nothing grows, by that definition, everything must be dead. Our research and that of other groups around the world shows that that is not true; it tells us that the current methods of analysis, which help us set the standards, are not rigorous enough. We have to use modern molecular and biochemical methods, which are available, but which, by and large, have not been adopted so far.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Keevil: As you rightly say, when we look at the data, depending on the source, it can be difficult to interpret because of the way it is recovered. For example, in the USA, they report on infections, some of which are assumed from the evidence they have available. If you look at the reporting of the numbers of pathogens in American produce, such as poultry, they report it in terms of the answer to the question, “Does the food contain more than”—for example—“400 counts of a pathogen per gram of food?” In the UK, the Food Standards Agency reports in terms of “low”, “medium” or “high”. National surveys such as sampling from supermarkets, for example, show that 50% of poultry have very low numbers of pathogens such as a salmonella; only about 5% or 6% have food samples with over 1,000 counts of a pathogen. By those criteria, UK foods appear to be safer—but, I must stress, according to those criteria.
As I say in the written evidence, we now have this vexed question of viable but non-culturable—VBNC—bacteria. When looking at some of the published data, it is very difficult to take that into account, but the work that we and other labs have done is now telling us that we cannot ignore it. We have published our work on chlorine treatment, but we have also looked at what happens when you stress a pathogen such as listeria by depriving it of nutrients. For example, in a factory where you are washing down with tap water, the listeria can still survive, and in those conditions it can become this VBNC form. If all you are doing is regular swabbing and then reporting, you could say, “Our factory is clear of listeria.” In fact, if we used the more modern methods, that might be found to be not true.
We are really talking not just about standards now, but the standards we should adopt in the future, both in the UK and in what we would expect other countries to adopt if we are going to import food from them.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Professor Keevil: As you rightly to point out, it is very complex. We have to talk about the food chain, but let us look at the route which is the primary source of pathogen ingress into the food chain. To take the case of poultry, one of the issues is that some countries, including America, they have intensive rearing of poultry; they also have cattle feed lots, where animals are raised and fed in a dense community. In the UK and Europe, our husbandry standards appear to be better, poultry are reared in less intensive conditions and we do not have cattle in feed lots like the Americans do, so the animals have more space, they appear to be healthier and, from what we have seen so far, they have reduced numbers of pathogens at that stage.
Of course, you are quite correct that every step in the food chain is a potential source of contamination. If we use lorries, provided that those lorries are properly cleaned and decontaminated, that should not be an issue. When food is produced for restaurants, if the staff adopt good hygiene, they should not transmit pathogens to the customers—that has been well documented. The supermarkets are very responsible; they have a reputation to maintain—they do not want to be seen as the supermarket that poisons their customers—so they maintain very high standards.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Professor Keevil: That is a tough question, partly because all the time we are seeing pathogens emerging. For example, we have E. coli 0157, which not even been heard of 30 years ago. We have Cryptosporidium, which had not been heard of 25 years ago. We are being presented with new challenges all the time. If we look at the more conventional pathogens, however, such as salmonella, if anything British farming is doing a good job. Salmonella-contaminated eggs have virtually been eliminated under that scheme, and the quality of the poultry sold by supermarkets appears to be a lot better. These are good things.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
Professor Keevil: The previous speaker was very concerned about the carbon footprint, and he rightly commented that the world needs NPK. The UK, if it needs NPK, has got to import it, and that means a very high carbon footprint from shipping, so that is in a way counter-intuitive.
For hundreds of years, the UK has been very good at crop rotation and the recycling of animal and human wastes. My research team has previously done work for DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency, looking at how safe composted animal manures and treated human wastes are. Our research shows that if they are treated properly, they can be recycled safely to land. That is a valuable source of NPK.
In terms of ecosystems and services, we are looking for balance and harmony. If anything, I would support more the view of the Soil Association. I think we can live in harmony, but we need to get that balance. For example, there has been a lot of concern about the availability of bees to fertilise plants. If everything was converted over to woodland, would we have sufficient banks of wildflowers to support essential insects to maintain the ecosystem? The plant life in the UK needs it; certainly, agriculture needs it. We need that balance. I think there is a role for farming in the UK.
On the impact on the environment, we still have green pleasant lands, and when you speak to visitors who come to the UK, a lot of them comment as they fly in that it is a pleasure to see well-kept farmland alongside woods, which I think is a good thing.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
Professor Keevil: Yes, it does. As a microbiologist, I support the safe production and supply of microbiologically safe food. One of the problems is that when we import food, there is a potential issue. If that means that that food is cheaper than what can be produced by UK farmers, the Bill must address that, because otherwise they could be at a financial disadvantage. The UK has always prided itself on quality, and I know that British farmers would like to maintain that reputation for quality. Perhaps the food they supply may be a little more expensive, but in a way that can be reassuring. If it means that the customer has to pay more, that is something that the Government have to look at within the Bill. When they talk about subsidies and remuneration, can it be facilitated that farmers who produce to the highest-quality standards are in some way remunerated for that?
Danny Kruger
Q
Professor Keevil: A lot of it is price driven, not surprisingly. Certain countries say, “We are in a competitive economy, and we believe we can supply food safely for a lower cost.” That is what our research and that of others is starting to challenge.
In terms of global supply, we talk a lot now about international jet travel. For example, we can travel around the world in 12 hours or what have you, hence the current problems with coronavirus, but many people forget about migratory birds. We know that some birds fly thousands of miles north and south, east and west. They can bring disease with them. That is partly why we have the problem of emerging diseases that we must be conscious of for the future. We have had concerns, for example, with avian flu and DEFRA maintained high surveillance of the farms where avian flu had an impact, to ensure that it did not decimate the poultry industry in the UK.
Those are all issues that we will have to face. We do not live in a sterile world. We have mass migration of people and particularly of wild birds. We must allow for that in all our farming practices and ecosystems services. I maintain that good husbandry practice is the way forward. The previous speaker mentioned factory production, and I agree with him in that very good supply chains are now being established for vegan burgers, much of which is produced from bacteria and fungi. That is a good thing.
Vertical farming is starting to become more prevalent. That is the horticulture where crops such as salads are grown in an aquaculture-based system, and everything is stacked up. We are now seeing very large factories where they control the quality of the water, the lighting regime and so on. That seems to be a very safe, nutritious way to produce salads. In the winter the UK imports a lot of salads from the Mediterranean countries—we used to import a lot from Kenya, but I think that is reduced now. We used to import a lot from Florida and California, and that is a carbon footprint, but if we can do more vertical farming ourselves, particularly in the winter, that is a substitute. We can get this mix of what we might call modern biotechnology with more traditional farming.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Q
Professor Keevil: To my mind, every five years should be the minimum frequency. That is because, as I have said, we are continually beset with emerging diseases and we have to be able to respond rapidly. The Food Standards Agency reports much more regularly than that, so in a way we already have inbuilt mechanisms to supply the information. It is true that the Bill says it should be every five years as a minimum, but I think DEFRA and the food standards agencies report more frequently. Whether that should be incorporated within the Bill is up for discussion, but we have good reporting.
Ruth Jones
That is what I would like to have your opinion on, because obviously five years is a long time. Do you have any thoughts on the timescale? Would you make a recommendation?
Professor Keevil: I would like to see it reported much more frequently, every year or every two years.
Miss Dines
Q
Professor Keevil: That is a good question, because you will get different metrics if you go to different sources. What we tried to do with those numbers was look at the annual reporting by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. You will find the information on their website. A lot of the agencies say, “Well, these are the numbers of actual reports that we have received,” for example, through people going to hospital, to their GP and so forth, and then they apply a multiplication factor for the numbers who could have been affected but for whom the signs of disease are much less—people who do not report that they have had any disease. A lot of the information is based on those types of numbers—for example, 14% of Americans do not report to a doctor to say they have had food poisoning—but they are extrapolated. As I say, you will get different metrics depending on your source. It could be that the figure in the UK is more than 1.5%, but I do not think it is anywhere near what the Americans have extrapolated.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Professor Keevil: As I said at the start, the issue is very complex because food security is not just about supply; it is about whether it is nutritious, wholesome and safe. You cannot separate one from the other, so we have to be aware of the microbiological safety of the food that is being produced and consumed. The work that we and others have done shows us that our current methods of assessing safety are not adequate. That has to be recognised. As a scientist, I would always say we need more research done; I sincerely believe we do in this particular case. Knowledge improves standards, and we have to adopt and enforce the highest standards. We need better research and continual reassessment of what we are being challenged with, and perhaps the Bill can reflect that.
The Chair
It seems we have no more questions. Professor Keevil, on behalf of the Committee, I thank you for your time and answers this afternoon.
Examination of Witnesses
Diana Holland and Jyoti Fernandes gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Unite and the Landworkers’ Alliance. We have until 4 pm. Welcome. Would you introduce yourselves?
Diana Holland: I am Diana Holland, Unite’s assistant general secretary, with responsibility for food, drink and agriculture. We are the only union that represents agricultural workers directly, as the historical Agricultural Workers Union is part of Unite.
Jyoti Fernandes: I am Jyoti Fernandes. I am a farmer in Dorset and president of the Landworkers’ Alliance, which is a union for small and family farms, mixed farms, market gardeners and community supported farms.
The Chair
Thank you. The acoustics in the room are poor, so it would be helpful if you raised your voice.
James Morris
Q
Diana Holland: The measures we were thinking about have previously been raised in a number of submissions: first, looking at the impact of the Bill on workers in agriculture, and secondly, looking specifically at the reinstatement of the protections of the Agricultural Wages Board, which currently exists, in some form, in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but not in England.
Why do we think that is important? We do not think that agricultural workers are like every other worker; we think that they are different and their experiences are different. As a union with an incredibly long history of representing them, we speak from experience. They have a special place in the union, and we think that they should have a special place in the Agriculture Bill, too.
Right this moment, the director of labour market enforcement has a session going on to look specifically at the problems of wage theft and employment law non-compliance in agriculture. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority has had a licensing system in agriculture for 15 years, but it is still recognised as an area with a high level of exploitation and threat of exploitation. That is the background to this.
When the Agricultural Wages Board covered everywhere, there was a level of protection and information that is no longer available to us. Increasingly, you will find that statistics relating to agriculture have little stars by them and a note at the bottom saying, “The sample figures are too small.” That does not mean that there are no other workers to record; it means that they are not hitting any of the official ways of recording people. Increasingly, we find that people are employed in different ways, meaning that they are not recognised in the official statistics in the way they used to be. The Agricultural Wages Board provided a way of ensuring that all that information came to the forefront.
Finally, we have always argued that safe, healthy food and high-quality jobs go hand in hand. There is lots of evidence that where workers are badly treated, there is also an undercutting of food quality standards across the board. We see this as part of ensuring and protecting food standards, food security, supply chains and all the other issues in the Bill. They all have workers associated with them, and we think they should be included and recognised.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Diana Holland: There are a couple of ways. One would obviously be an additional clause that covered the impact on workers of those developments in agriculture and how the protections that exist in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland could also be applied to agricultural workers in England. On top of that, in the rules for agri-food imports, where we will be looking at future developments, we are extremely concerned, first, that there is a lessening of all standards and, secondly, that where food is concerned, while there may be some recognition of protections for food standards, and even of animal welfare, workers may be left out. It should all go together—food, environment, labour protections for everybody.
As I said, when we wrote to our rural and agricultural representatives to ask for examples of issues—I am aware it is anecdotal, but it is important—we found that there are still pressures to hide problems that agricultural workers face, because in small isolated communities personal relationships often extend over other areas and the employer may have other roles in the community that people feel could have an impact on their lives. There is pressure all the time not to speak out about problems that arise. Your accommodation is often tied to your job in some shape or form, whether that is on the horticultural or agricultural side of things. It is those kinds of pressures and those sorts of experiences that we think need to be included; otherwise there is a real danger that, as well as being wrong for the people concerned, they will undermine some of the other things that the Bill is trying to achieve.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Diana Holland: First, there is a bit of a dearth of information. We have been constantly asking for that to be specifically looked at. We have done some research ourselves, however. Not long after the board was abolished, within the first year or two years, we surveyed all our members who had been covered by it. We were really shocked, although perhaps not surprised, to find that a huge proportion had had no pay rise since the Agricultural Wages Board had been abolished. Those who had had a pay rise, the vast majority, had had no say or discussion over that pay rise—it had just been introduced.
The employers we have talked to in the sector have said that they would find it helpful to have a process that could be relied on and about which everybody has said, “We’ve come to a conclusion,” rather than the pressure of having to negotiate individually or to find that the pressure is on and to think about what is fair in the circumstances. There is also exploitation in the sector—I will not run away from that—but I am not saying that every single person is deliberately trying to exploit. Sometimes there are other pressures.
There was also some survey work done in 2017 that compared Wales with England. There was a suggestion that protections in Wales meant that there was a 6% higher rate of pay overall. As I say, again, these are often small samples and figures, and we need to look more. We have had a chance, however, to talk to the employers in Wales. Some of the evidence from the employer representatives has made us concerned that there are employers in the sector—who previously followed a system that has been abolished—who are not aware of their responsibilities and who saw the national minimum wage as a voluntary mechanism rather than an absolute requirement. That might seem impossible, but it is a reality that came out in the discussions and the evidence. We feel that where the Bill talks about public money for public goods, that should also include ensuring that the workers are treated decently.
The minimum wage does not cover all the additional things. Career progression was provided, relating it to the jobs and roles that people have, allowances for having a dog, overtime and sick pay rates. All those details were included, but they are not in the national minimum wage, which does not take into account the particular considerations that the Agricultural Wages Board does. But that does exist elsewhere. That has been a massive loss to those people, without any demonstrable gain to anybody.
Fay Jones
Q
Diana Holland: Can you explain what you mean by that? Do you mean in terms of the workforce?
Fay Jones
In terms of farmers being at one end of the supply chain, dealing with much larger retailers and much longer, complex supply chains. Do you think the Bill gives them any further protection than they already have under the Groceries Code Adjudicator or the grocery supply code of practice? Do you think that the Bill will work well with existing policy measures?
Diana Holland: First of all, we really welcome the recognition that protection needs to be built in to the supply chain. However, we are concerned that there is not sufficient detail, and how it will work in practice needs to be fleshed out in more detail. In our experience, holding different stages in the supply chain to account is a very difficult thing to enforce. Often, when workers are at the end of that supply chain, they are the last people to be considered. Something that may have been very well intentioned at one end of that supply chain pushes enormous pressures at the other. If there are savings to be made, it would be on the amounts of money that are paid.
We want protections built in, so that part of enforcement along the supply chain would be to check that that is not happening, and that it is not a method of passing on pressures to cut standards and people’s pay. It is really important that it is in there, but we feel that there should be more detail. I have not identified any contradictions with other legislation, but when it comes to the detail, that would need to be taken into account.
Fay Jones
Q
Jyoti Fernandes: No, I do not think it gives more protection to farmers. This is a slightly different part of the Bill, and I had prepared to talk about it later. It needs to change from powers to duties, to assure farmers that the money will come through to support farmer incomes. We greatly agree with the thrust of the Bill, but it is quite scary that even though great programmes are being rolled out, such as the environmental land management schemes, there is no assurance that that will continue and that Government will give the budget to those programmes to help supplement farmer incomes in future. That is scary and it is worrying for our food supply. It would mean a lot if the Bill’s wording was changed from “may” to “must” give money, to ensure that we will be able to rely on some income to supplement producing the food that everybody needs.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
Jyoti Fernandes: Our union represents all scales of farms: we are all agroecological farms, family farms and mixed farms. As smallholder farmers, this is something we are particularly interested in. We also represent a lot of horticulturalists, who grow fruit and veg, and it is possible to grow a lot of fruit and veg on a very small acreage.
To date, we have been really disadvantaged by the payment schemes that are out there. There is a 5-hectare threshold, which cuts people off from getting payments if they have less than 5 hectares. If someone has a large landholding that is used extensively for beef, they can get quite a lot of subsidy, but if they have less than 5 hectares and use it for intensive market gardening—providing the fresh fruit and veg that we need—they get nothing. That means that 85% of our membership have never received subsidies before. That puts us at a serious disadvantage, even though we as small farms provide a huge amount of public goods—we directly provide fresh food, the sorts of fresh fruit and veg that we need for healthier diets—to communities. In the transition around climate change, we need to eat more fruit and veg and less meat. That is the sort of thing that we can be in a position to do.
There is nothing in the Bill that specifically directs towards helping smaller farms, though the focus on public goods would enable us to do that, if we get the right schemes in place. We are working with DEFRA to try to ensure that the schemes it rolls out will benefit horticulture and fruit and veg. One amendment that we suggested was about affordable access to food. We would like to see some acknowledgment that agriculture is about producing food and that everyone needs food. While food itself might be a business like any other—bought, sold and traded—access to food is not. Having good, nutritious food available to everyone is something we strongly believe in.
If that was in the Bill, a lot of our farms, which provide a social outcome directly to consumers at an affordable price—from fresh fruit and veg, to milk and pasture-fed, free-range meat—could be enabled to develop those marketing mechanisms. That would help us out quite a lot. That means community supported agriculture, direct supply chain stuff and doorstep delivery of unpasteurised, raw, wholesome milk, or whatever it may be. That would enable those small businesses that work directly for our food supply in our local communities to get support. It would also support community farms that integrate social measures. They might, for example, have green gyms, work with horticultural therapy or bring people form disadvantaged backgrounds into the countryside to learn where their food comes from and join in that process. Food has a much wider remit than just being something that farmers gain an income from. A lot of us produce food because we believe it is important to our society.
Danny Kruger
Q
Diana Holland: Obviously, all workers deserve overall protection. Many workers have additional forms of collective bargaining or representation through different structures. Agricultural workers in some areas are an example of an extremely fragmented and isolated group of workers; in other areas, there are big concentrations for small periods of time. The work is seasonal and there is insecurity.
The issues they have experienced over many years are well-documented. I think that singles them out to require more than the basic national minimum wage, working time regulations etc., to take account of the fact that people may have accommodation tied to their role, which could be their permanent home or temporary accommodation for a seasonal role, or that transport could be provided, which, in extreme circumstances, is used to keep people on site beyond the time that they should be there or is denied to them. Those kinds of things mean that there is intense pressure.
Danny Kruger
Q
Diana Holland: They are particularly vulnerable to abuse. Therefore, it continues to be recognised that they need to be identified within labour market protection. In Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, they have additional protections to those that apply in England. We think that needs to be put right.
While, of course, at the time, in 2010, a number of things identified as red tape, burdens and so on were got rid of, there was general shock throughout the sector—across the board—that it could have been done like that to the Agricultural Wages Board, with a two-week consultation period, given that it had existed all that time and had all that experience. It needs to be put right.
Dave Doogan
Q
Diana Holland: I would say so, yes. It has been done recently; obviously, the original legislation covered England and Wales, so extricating Wales and doing that separately has been done in recent times. My answer would be yes.
Dave Doogan
Q
Jyoti Fernandes: In many ways, because our union works with workers across Europe, we think it is important that some workers can come over to other places, as long as they are respected and get decent wages and decent labour conditions, to work on larger agricultural units. By and large, we represent people who live in the UK who want to be able to produce and to farm and work on other landholdings as well. We do feel that more encouragement and support for the sector, so there did not need to be poor working conditions, there were decent wages, and fewer pesticides and fungicides were used, would encourage British workers to work on farms. We also feel that would encourage loads of independent smallholder market gardens, which can be quite intensive and could provide really good employment —and enjoyment in that employment. We would like to see a lot more encouragement for independent horticulture and British workers.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Diana Holland: When it existed, it was not any different, and it was fine in the sense that it operated. Whether everybody got what they were entitled to is another question; perhaps you are suggesting they did not. Certainly, we have worrying evidence of individuals being paid not in money but through provision of accommodation and so on. We got evidence—it was a terrible story—that an individual woman had worked for a long time on a farm and in all that time had never received anything, apart from the odd bit of what might be considered pocket money. She was extremely worried when the employer was in danger of stepping down from his responsibilities that nothing—no rights—would exist for her. I think that is evidence of the nature of the problems that workers in the sector face. I do not think it is a reason for not trying to do something about it. I think it is important that people receive recompense for what they are doing, and that needs to take account of the nature of agriculture. The Agricultural Wages Board does that by bringing together workers’ representatives, farmers’ and employers’ representatives and independent experts in a tripartite way, to make sure that that properly reflects what is really going on. The issues you raise would be discussed at the table, alongside the pressures and issues that I am raising and the official evidence gathered by the experts.
Theo Clarke
Q
Jyoti Fernandes: We believe in smaller units, where you do not need to bring in loads of seasonal workers. With smaller-scale market gardens and horticultural units that pay well, you can attract British workers and will not need to bring in so many people from other countries in order to pick those crops. We see a flourishing, home-grown fruit industry, where you can bring in more people to do that kind of work.
That needs investment, access to land, grants for people to get into that kind of small-scale market gardening and horticultural units and to plant fruit trees into mixed farms, and training. It needs routes to market, which means processing facilities, so that you can make apple juices and that type of thing, and so that you can store those things, add value to them and get better value back on them. It needs distribution facilities within local market economies. That might be market facilities in town, online distribution services or co-operatives that try to process those fruits and get them to market, so that you get a good price for them. It needs all those sorts of investment in our national infrastructure in fruit, fruit processing and distribution.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Diana Holland: You are definitely right to be concerned about it. The important thing is that, where decent standards are protected and reinstated, they should apply to everybody. The original seasonal agricultural workers scheme was part of an educational opportunity for students. We worked very hard and gave evidence over many years to make sure that that was what it was. It should not be about workers coming in from other countries—because the sector cannot get people in this country to work for the terms and conditions and pay that it is offering—and then treating them extremely badly when they are here. As you say, it will not provide the security, the quality needed or the stability in the sector. It is very important. We want opportunities that are properly worked out. How fantastic it would be if we could make this sector one that people want to work in and one that they look for, rather than thinking it is somewhere they will be exploited.
Daniel Zeichner
There is a danger that, if we do not address those labour supply issues, the industry will struggle, and we will then inevitably be back to importing food from outside again.
Diana Holland: Exactly.
Jyoti Fernandes: I was going to bring up something really important to this whole scenario, which is the impact of trade. Basically, we are never going to get the conditions here where small and family farms can survive as independent businesses, or keep decent work opportunities on larger units, if you are undercut by cheaper produce from elsewhere. It just is not a possibility. The global marketplace can source cheap labour—slave labour—from all over the planet, and really exploit places with really low conditions. It is not just the trade standards: it is also the competition from very large multinational corporations in other countries—the huge farms in California or South America, which have loads of exploited labour, much higher levels of pesticide usage and multinational advertising campaigns that will blow any of our homegrown industries out of the water, unless we can get some control over that and have something in the Bill that allows for tariffs that stop that imported stuff, and standards and rules that do not allow our homegrown industries to be undercut.
This is a very exciting Agriculture Bill. Everything about it that is moving towards environmentally friendly farming, agroecological farming and all of that is tremendously exciting. We could have one of the best homegrown food supplies in Europe, and we could really pioneer something very special and really support small and family farms, independent businesses and workers being treated decently, but not if we are undercut by cheap imports. That must be looked at very carefully, otherwise all the good work and the good will of this Bill will be undone.
The Chair
If there are no more questions, I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Vicki Hird, Dr Nick Palmer and James West gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Sustain and Compassion in World Farming. We have until 4.30 pm. I welcome the witnesses and would ask them to introduce themselves for the record.
Dr Palmer: I am Nick Palmer. I am the head of Compassion in World Farming UK. Compassion is the largest animal welfare charity globally, and we have developed our interests to also look at the environment surrounding animal welfare issues. In the mists of pre-history, I was the Member for Broxtowe for 13 years.
James West: I am James West, the senior policy manager at Compassion in World Farming—I work with Nick.
Vicki Hird: I am Vicki Hird, farming campaign co-ordinator at Sustain, which is an alliance of over 100 non-governmental organisations and royal societies, including Compassion and many other people you have had as witnesses.
James Morris
Q
Dr Palmer: The Bill is a good basis, but it is a missed opportunity in the sense that it provides the basis for a variety of things that the Secretary of State may do, but it does not specify what the Secretary of State will do. In the current situation in particular, after Brexit, the farmers and everyone dealing with the industry need more certainty. This would really be an opportunity to pin down what we are prepared to do and what we are not prepared to do in terms of trade, support for the farming industry and a long-term strategy to ensure that we have a viable farming industry stretching into the future.
James West: I would add that it is important that the Bill is joined-up in its thinking, in as far as protection from potentially being undercut—as I am sure you have heard lots of times—as a result of trade agreements. That is fairly critical. That is not in the Bill. Added to that would be that you are then providing farmers with subsidies and grants to help them move to higher standards of production. We should also be looking at things such as method of production labelling—as Nick said, that it is a “may” in the Bill, rather than a “must”—so that consumers know what they are purchasing. We should also look at Government procurement policy, so that in addition to protecting farmers from what is coming into the country, you are also rewarding farmers for delivering higher standards and for protecting our animal welfare standards. Just on Government procurement, McDonald’s has better animal welfare procurement policies than the UK Government, which should not be the case, and the Bill could address that.
Vicki Hird: We were very pleased to see some of the changes in the Agriculture Bill. Overall, we are very positive about the public money for public goods approach and the financial support being listed. We were very pleased to see soil being included in that. We would like to see a stronger reference to agroecological whole-farm systems, because we think that is the way to ensure that you get the in-field changes, as well as the edge of field, wildlife and other nature outcomes that you see. We need the whole of the UK farming system to go towards an agroecological approach in whatever way they can. Those steps should be available through financial support.
We would also like to see, as Nick said, a lot of these things as duties, rather than powers. It seems incredible how much effort—I know, because I have been involved—DEFRA has put into the environmental land management scheme, when it could stop it all in a couple of years and pay a smaller amount of money and not follow through. As MPs, you should have that accountability for you on delivering ELMS.
Finally, I agree with Diana on the protection for workers. We are also pleased with clause 27, which concerns fair dealing. It has been enhanced to really protect farmers. We are grateful to DEFRA for making those changes and to George Eustice, who we welcome as our new Secretary of State. We would like to see that as a duty, because it is so important. It is absolutely vital that we get the protection for farmers in the supply chain. They do have that from retailers, but most farmers do not sell direct to retailers. They need good codes of conduct developed with the industry for every sector, probably starting with dairy.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Vicki Hird: Thank you for reminding me about the public health purpose. We think it would be very easy to insert it into the Bill. There are so many ways it is already designed to help, for instance with air pollution and with reducing exposure to plant protection products, which can be harmful. We think that saying that there is a public health purpose for agriculture would recognise what an important thing farmers do in providing us with healthy, safe food. It could help by showing that having animal health and welfare measures that help farmers to manage their stock and change their stocking patterns can reduce the reliance on antibiotics, which we know is an absolute global public good, in order to protect our medicinal antibiotics.
The other area is the huge need to boost our supply of fruit and veg, so that people can have access to closer-to-home, more affordable, fresh, sustainably produced fruit and vegetables. That is absolutely central to a healthier diet for the nation. To be able to say that we were doing that would be a benefit. As James was saying about procurement, we could be saying something about procurement and investing in healthier diets for our children in schools.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Vicki Hird: I think that would be very helpful. We designed a clause for the previous version of this Bill that mentioned that, along with exposure to pesticides for consumers, workers and the community, and other aspects of public health. There therefore is a clause available, if anybody wants to table it.
Antibiotic reduction is important. I know that the industry has already gone some way. It is doing a good job, but it needs to be supported in that, through animal health and welfare financial support, and through training, advice and demonstration. The Budget should definitely be strong enough and big enough to provide farmers with that kind of support, to take things in the direction of lower antibiotic use.
James West: The question was about subsidies, and bars on subsidies. We support the use of subsidies for delivering the public goods that are in the Bill. Again, we would like that to be a requirement rather than a “may”. Essentially, public money should deliver genuinely higher standards of welfare; it should not be for meeting the regulatory baseline or going marginally beyond it. If you are looking at the top line, you might consider such things as allowing animals to express their natural behaviour, access to pasture for dairy cows, and the provision of enrichment materials for pigs. Obviously, depending on which species you look at, there will be different requirements, but broadly speaking, they will be lower stocking densities, slower-growing breeds, if we are talking about meat chickens, and access to pasture outdoors.
You might also look at things that would disqualify someone from receiving an animal welfare payment. One of the things that Compassion works on is ending the live export of animals. From our point of view, if you are involved in the live export trade, you should probably not receive the public subsidy for good animal welfare. In the area of mutilations, going back to pigs, you have enrichment. In Germany, they provide a premium for pigs at slaughter when the pig gets to the slaughterhouse with an intact tail, because that means that you have almost certainly run a very good system. The amount of space, enrichment and so on that you will have given the pigs during the rearing process will have been such that you will not have needed to tail-dock the pig, as you might in more intensive systems. We have fairly detailed documents with what may or may not qualify you for a subsidy, but broadly speaking it is natural behaviours and space.
Dr Palmer: The absence of a clear percentage commitment regarding the amount of support that will be given for animal welfare purposes means that a degree of uncertainty remains, which is bad for the whole agricultural industry. A farmer needs to know that what amount of money is potentially available, so that they can try to work for it. With respect to the new Chancellor, we are unlikely to get an infinite amount of subsidy in the Budget, so it makes sense that the available money is used to help farmers to become among the best in the world, rather than to move marginally from a fairly low base to a slightly higher one.
In the long term, the future of British farming has to be at the top of the scale. If we try to race to the bottom, we will fail. The British farming industry will not succeed on that basis, so we should consider the areas where we can help farmers to move towards higher welfare—for instance, ending the use of farrowing crates. There is a one-off cost, which it is reasonable to help them with. Once they have moved away from that, there should not be an additional cost. They will then, in association with the better labelling scheme, be able to tell consumers that British farming has produced higher welfare, higher quality meat.
Mr Goodwill
Q
However, I noticed that the Compassion in World Farming website talks about ending “the horror” of factory farming. I just wondered if you felt that there were any farms in this country that that definition would apply to. You talked about housed livestock—for example, dairy cattle that are housed in winter. Do you think that is acceptable? Where do you set the bar in describing what British farmers are doing, perfectly legally, as “horror”?
Dr Palmer: When we are talking about horrific factory farming, we are talking about the caging of egg-laying hens, which is still one third of the total in Britain; we are talking about the use of farrowing crates, which keep the sow unable even to turn round for up to five weeks.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Dr Palmer: There are very well-established alternative methods. At the moment, British farming is 50:50—roughly 50% have moved away from farrowing crates and the other half have not. That is a record that is less good than some countries’, and really we should strive to be the best.
One can always argue about the exact wording, but I think that anyone familiar with the range of systems in British farming would agree that it ranges from the very good—where we can really be proud and tell the world that we are the world leader—to areas where the farmers themselves would say that they would like to do better but cannot afford the conversion costs. This is a classic example of a public good. I think the overwhelming majority of British consumers would be pleased to know that farmers were moving up the scale. Farmers themselves would like to, but they need assistance for the one-off transition costs.
This is not an area of huge controversy between us and the National Farmers Union and others. We are all pulling in the same direction, and we should use the opportunity of Brexit to try to make sure that we actually get to that point.
Ruth Jones
Q
Dr Palmer: Having more local abattoirs is clearly desirable. It is a marginal business for many, and you cannot force people to set up a local abattoir, but I think there would be a great deal of cross-party and cross-industry support for the idea that it should be encouraged.
The problem with overseas shipment is partly the time involved, and you can get pre-weaned calves transported for over 100 hours. That is with pauses, but it is nevertheless a grim business and is really difficult to defend, and a lot of farmers will not defend it.
Also, there is the lack of control. It is very difficult, with the best will in the world, for DEFRA to say what will happen at all stages of a journey once a vehicle moves outside the UK. I used to be Parliamentary Private Secretary to a DEFRA Minister, and this was an issue we struggled with. Live exports is a very small part of the British farming industry, and we think it is one that should come to an end.
James West: I would add that people can take the journey length to be the time it takes to take the channel tunnel from Dover to Calais, for example, but we are talking about live exports going on a boat that is not really designed for sea crossing. The crossing from Ramsgate to Calais normally takes about six hours, so by the time you have got to Ramsgate and across to the other side, you are talking about a fairly lengthy journey time, which in most cases would probably get you to an abattoir in the UK.
Theo Clarke
Q
Vicki Hird: I think it is welcome to have that in there. There is a case for making it more frequent, given that we are facing a climate and nature emergency that will threaten our supplies and production here and overseas. We should be building that into the review, in terms of anticipating how that will affect land use both here and overseas. That is currently not in the Bill, and it would be a welcome addition to recognise the sustainability factors that will increasingly come into play before the next five years are up. We already know that flooding is more frequent, and drought is affecting many parts of Africa, which supplies us with a lot of fruit and veg.
There is a case for more frequent reporting; it is a welcome element in the Bill, but as the previous speaker mentioned, we already do much of this food security assessment already, so it is a question of building on that and making it an integral part of the sustainability of our food system. [Applause.] May I congratulate George Eustice, our new Secretary of State? I will end there, on food security.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Dr Palmer: Yes, I see the problem. As in other areas of public subsidy, we have to start from where we are. Because we have the range of quality that I mentioned in response to the previous question, there are a lot of farmers who would genuinely like to raise their standards, but need assistance in doing so. I accept that there is an element of moral hazard in that, if someone already has superb standards, they may feel a bit irritated that someone else is being given money to come up to them.
Kerry McCarthy
Is that how it would work? That is the other thing. It is the same as with planting trees or improving soil health; there is a danger that, in a bid to use public money to encourage other people to do that, the people who were ahead of the curve are penalised.
Dr Palmer: I believe DEFRA envisages, which I think is right, two types of support. One is to assist with specific one-off costs—I gave the farrowing crate as an example—but the other is to reward people who are meeting a higher standard. To my mind, that must be linked to a good labelling scheme, because if we are spending public money to assist farmers to reach a higher standard, we should also be able to tell consumers about it, so that they can respond, in the same way that we have seen with eggs. When there was a choice between free-range and battery eggs, people migrated overwhelmingly to free range, to the point that it is now very difficult to get the lowest standard of egg in supermarkets. You are right that, over time, we will probably develop further ideas on how to give farm animals the best possible life, and that is right—we should not stay at the same level forever—but for the time being there is a lot to be done to reinforce the farmers who are striving to be the best.
Fay Jones
Q
If I may, Mr Stringer, I have a small supplementary. In Compassion’s written submission, you welcomed the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations regarding farming method in relation to labelling. Could you elaborate on that, please?
James West: We submitted details to DEFRA a while ago. Essentially it would be different labels indicating the method of production. The range of methods of production would differ according to species, but in effect you would indicate whether it had been produced, say, intensively indoors versus extensively outdoors and everything in between. That would be on the packet, so when you go to the supermarket or shop you can see how the product was produced. As Nick was saying, with eggs that moved the market towards free-range eggs and away from caged egg sales—barn egg sales in the UK are low—to the extent that roughly half the supermarkets have phased out caged egg sales and the other half plan to do so by 2025.
It goes back to the point that you need to support the farmers in the subsidy scheme we introduce, but there also needs to be an outlet for them to show that they are delivering at a level that consumers may want. It does not mean that consumers have to buy it—they can see the stuff produced to a lower standard and still choose that—but at least they are informed. At the moment, it is really hard to find meat or dairy products labelled as to method of production. Possibly the only other one is outdoor-bred and outdoor-reared for pork; other than that, it is essentially free range/organic or you are in the dark. It would cover the whole spectrum.
Dr Palmer: That is also really important when you come to trade, because if we are to sign a free trade agreement with the United States or other countries, we really need to give our negotiators a clear steer on what we collectively are willing to see. If we have an evolving labelling scheme, we have a basis for doing that. As you know, international trade negotiations usually start from the point that each side says what their red lines are and what they cannot move on and the negotiations operate around those to see what is possible. We are keen to see specifications in the Bill on minimum standards for animal welfare—Ministers have said this many times—so that our negotiators can say to their American, Brazilian or other counterparts, “I’d love to help you, but I’m afraid I can’t because it is in the legislation.” That would give farmers and consumers the reassurance that we are absolutely not going to end up with British farming being undercut by what you vulgarly call cheap and nasty imports.
Vicki Hird: I think that goes for other aspects of food standards and production standards. I totally agree with Nick. It is very important that we see something in the Bill around trade—I am sure you have heard this a lot over the last week—so that we have a way to stop agri-food imports produced to lower standards of food, animal welfare and environmental production systems. I would add labour standards as well.
One of our members is supporting the idea of an 100% grass-fed label, because there is some confusion about grass-fed labels and claims being made. There is a very good Pasture-Fed Livestock Association producing animals with really strong environmental, as well as animal welfare, benefits. It is only fair that that should be recognised through a proper labelling scheme.
Danny Kruger
Q
Vicki Hird: There is a balance to be struck. People are still going to eat meat. It is a highly nutritious product and there are people who want to eat it. Recognising that, we should be eating much less but better meat, produced here in ways that we can recognise, enforce and celebrate, alongside the rewilding that can go along with those animals.
Danny Kruger
Q
Vicki Hird: There is a lot of science, and people pick the science they want to use. There are a lot of differences. You can go from one meter in one field, to another meter, and it can be a different carbon reading. We have to be careful with this and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. For instance, small-scale producers will not be able measure their carbon with expensive tools, so we need to make sure we are doing right but also supporting farmers for agroforesty, for rewilding with animals and for silvopasture, which is fantastic and can have big animal welfare gains. There is a spectrum that we need to recognise.
George has a particular approach and we do have a crisis ahead. We need to recognise that, but we take a less is better approach. We can envisage the Bill supporting farmers to deliver that. It does not include factory farms, I have to say.
Dr Palmer: I am not sure I fully answered your question regarding Compassion’s submission on labelling. This is an area where the international debate is moving very rapidly. France now has a very extensive scheme, pioneered by Carrefour and Casino, two of the big supermarket chains. Germany is proposing that the European Union as a whole looks at labelling, specifically for animal welfare. There are also schemes in Italy and Denmark. It is important that we do not fall behind the curve here. People are looking at us and asking, after Brexit, are we going to be better or going to have to fall behind? This is a classic example. The Bill offers the opportunity to pin down some of the reassurance that people are looking for.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Dr Palmer: Personally, I would not go in for legislating on what people call things, unless there is a deliberate attempt to defraud. If someone goes to the vegan section in Sainsbury’s and sees a sausage, it is unlikely that they will say, “Aha! That’s a pig.” I do not feel it is worth parliamentary time. Companies are quite capable of making clear what it is they are selling.
The Chair
If there are no more questions, on behalf of the Committee I thank the witnesses for their evidence this afternoon.
Examination of Witness
Sue Davies gave evidence.
The Chair
We have until 5pm for evidence from the representative of Which? Welcome. Could you introduce yourself?
Sue Davies: Good afternoon. My name is Sue Davies. I am head of consumer protection and food policy at Which?.
George Eustice
Q
Sue Davies: May I start by saying congratulations on your appointment, Mr Eustice?
We support the public money for public goods approach. We think it is the right way to go, but there is a real opportunity to put more about consumers—the people who will ultimately be eating the food—in the Bill. There is a range of ways in which that could be done. We have a real opportunity to redesign agriculture policy to make sure that we have a much more joined-up approach to food and farming policy in general. We welcome the commitment to the national food strategy, for example, as part of that.
The public money for the public goods that are included is really important, but we would also like to see a stronger focus on other consumer benefits, particularly in relation to food safety, public health and reducing antibiotic resistance. When talking about productivity and increasing food production, we fine that people care so much about food. We have done lots of consumer research over the years. In the last couple of years, we have particularly focused on asking people about food standards.
People expect the UK to have really high standards and that, if anything, we will build on the standards that we have at the moment. We talk about productivity, and we want it done in a way that meets consumer expectations. We would also like to see a more general commitment to upholding high food standards in the Bill.
George Eustice
Q
There is a separate area that is about public health campaigns, healthy eating and food standards, but obviously measures are already in place through the Food Safety Act 1990 and the work that the NHS does to encourage healthy eating. Our view is that we do not want to duplicate work that is already present in other fields and is the responsibility of other Departments.
Sue Davies: I can see that to some extent, but there is a real opportunity to integrate public health much more in farming practices. A good example of that is the work the Food Standards Agency did a couple of years ago to try to reduce campylobacter rates in chickens. We have regulation to some extent around that to try to control the practices that are used, but it was only by incentivising action throughout the supply chain—in that case, by the Food Standards Agency doing a retail survey, where it was, in effect, naming and shaming retailers by showing how campylobacter levels compared—that that led to co-operation across the supply chain to look at what measures could be put in place. That included measures in slaughterhouses as well as a strong on-farm focus, such as looking at biosecurity measures and what happens in relation to thinning.
It is that kind of approach that we feel should be included, and certainly the opportunity to do it should not be excluded. Some things will require regulation, and we definitely think they should be regulated, but it is a mix of using regulation and wider incentives to raise best practice. For issues such as antibiotic use, there is an opportunity to try to incentivise the reduced use of antibiotics again, on top of the legislative requirements that we have.
George Eustice
Q
Sue Davies: It is certainly really positive that that is in there, but if there are specific measures where the main goal is focused on human health, rather than animal health, that should be included in the Bill. Ultimately, the Bill will determine the types of food choices we have as consumers and the sorts of standards to which our food is produced. Obviously, a lot of other policies will have an impact on that, but we think this is a real opportunity to shape our food system in a positive way that works for consumers as well as farmers. We should not miss these really good opportunities to include that in the Bill at this point.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Ms Davies, I am bound to ask you the question that I have asked virtually every other witness: from a consumer’s point of view, what would be the impact of allowing imports produced to lower standards? I think I can probably guess the answer, because it has been very consistent across all our witnesses. At the end of the whole chain, particularly with ready meals and so on, do you feel that consumers know enough in the current system? Could we not do more through the Bill to lift standards, particularly on antibiotics and so on?
Sue Davies: I think your food standards question is really important and shows why we need to make sure that we have a joined-up policy. This will have a big impact on the sorts of choices that consumers can make, but if we do not address other policies, particularly trade policy, it could completely undermine all the positive things that we are trying to achieve with the Bill.
As I mentioned, we know from our consumer research that people have really high expectations on food standards. Some 93% of people said they expect that food standards will be maintained, and ideally people think they should be enhanced now that we have left the EU. People do not expect cheaper imports to come in and undercut our producers. People want to support UK producers, particularly of products such as meat and dairy, so the tariff schedule that has come out is interesting. All of that has to be joined up to make sure that we are not trading away our standards and potentially bringing in safety issues, or allowing production methods that we know consumers do not find acceptable.
We saw with the horsemeat scare that food has many different aspects. Some are about safety, and others are cultural—people just do not want to eat food that is produced in certain ways. We have been doing a lot of survey work and we know that around eight in 10 people have concerns about eating hormone-treated beef. A similar number have concerns about food produced using antibiotic growth promoters. Those practices are used in some of the countries with which we will seek to reach trade deals—hormones in the case of the US, Australia and New Zealand. We absolutely have to ensure that trade policy builds on our current standards. If anything, we are looking to improve our standards rather than allow them to deteriorate or accept lower quality imports that will make it very difficult for UK producers to produce to the standards that consumers expect.
We have also asked about labelling issues, because sometimes it is suggested that people can decide if you just label everything. People feel strongly about it and do not think that labelling is the solution. That applies to people across all socioeconomic groups; it is not just better-off customers who can make this sort of choice. We think it is really important that there is something in the Bill that makes it clear that we should maintain and build on our food standards.
We have asked people what they think about labelling, and they generally tell us that they think the labelling information is about right, but when you ask people about where improvements might be made, they talk about things such as helping people to make more sustainable choices and improved animal welfare labelling. There is scope to look at how we can improve that by building on the labelling information that we have already. One area that we know people feel strongly about is the traffic light nutritional labelling system, which we would like to be made mandatory when we have the opportunity to legislate to do so.
Fay Jones
Q
Sue Davies: We can put it in this Bill and in the trade Bill. This is about agriculture and how we incentivise food production, and a vision for agriculture in the UK. The approach that we take to trade will have a huge impact on how we are able to deliver that, and it will have huge implications for the support that needs to be provided to farmers and how we incentivise standards. There is a strong link between the two.
We think there should definitely be something in the Bill recognising, at a principled level, that this is what UK food production is about. It should also recognise that, on the one hand, we need to ensure that we maintain high standards that meet consumers’ expectations at a national level and, on the other hand, that we will take a strong stance to ensure we are not trading away those food standards to get the many other benefits we might get through trade deals. It should not be about losing food standards to get those benefits.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
Sue Davies: I suppose that reinforces your question in a way. Ultimately, things like soil health will feed through into the quality of the food that we eat as consumers. That is why we must ensure that there is recognition that the way we produce food has huge implications for consumers, both in terms of their health and their preferences. Most people will not think about soil when you ask them about food, but it will have an indirect impact on them.
At a more principled level, when we are talking about public money for public goods, we should recognise that public health and food safety are important. There is a range of different mechanisms. Some things are obvious, such as the promotion of fruit and vegetables, but as we are looking at how food is produced and the production methods that are used, it is important that there is a clear steer that public health and food safety must also be at the heart of that.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
Sue Davies: Including provisions that enable financial assistance for food safety and public health measures, such as the reduced use of antibiotics, feeds through into the things the Food Standards Agency is trying to achieve. That then allows sufficient flexibility.
I mentioned the example of campylobacter because that has been a big priority. It is the main type of food poisoning in the UK. Most of it comes from chickens. We have been struggling to reduce its level for years. We have made progress in recent years by taking the farm-to-fork approach. We need to recognise that a lot of things that manifest at the end of the food chain originate in production. Giving the flexibility to be able to provide financial assistance and incentivise those kinds of measures is really important. The Food Standards Agency will then need to work with DEFRA and others in defining what those might be and what sort of indicators you might want to include, in terms of the monitoring that is set out in the Bill.
Miss Dines
Q
Sue Davies: We are certainly not protectionist and we are certainly in favour of consumer choice. However, it is about enabling people to make meaningful choices and the types of choices that we want. We also base what we say and what we call for on consumer research—talking to people and understanding their perspectives. Over the last couple of decades, we have been talking to people about food a lot, but in the last three years we have had a regular tracker and have been asking a lot about food standards.
We are just in the process of doing some more research, for which we are going to do a series of public dialogues around the country, particularly focused on trade deals and what some of the opportunities of those could be, as well as some of the issues over which people might have concerns. It will look at food standards, but also at things like digital services and opportunities for a wide range of cheaper products. We know from the research we have done to date that people feel very strongly about food production methods and would have concerns if food was allowed to come in with reduced, cheaper standards that undermined the standards and choices we have at the moment.
I do not think it is about reducing people’s choice. It is about enabling people to have an informed choice, and about enabling everybody to have a choice. At the moment, we have regulation and standards that underpin everything that everybody buys, whatever their income level. If it suddenly becomes the case that only those who can afford it can have the type of standards we have at the moment, and other people have to have lower standards, that would certainly be a completely retrograde step.
We are starting from a point where we have good standards, and we are about to start negotiating trade deals, so we need to be really clear in those objectives about where food fits. We need to look at the opportunities for food and other things that we might gain in those trade deals, but also to be really clear about where we will not compromise. Things such as food safety and quality and animal welfare come out from our research as things that people do not think we should compromise on.
Ruth Jones
Q
Sue Davies: We are really pleased that the national food strategy is being developed. In a way, it is incredible that we have not really got a clear vision for food and how it should be produced, so we think that is really valuable. The way it is being conducted, with public dialogues and citizens’ assemblies, is a really inclusive process, and will hopefully look at the breadth of issues and the many different interests involved in food policy.
As you say, ideally you would have your food policy, and you would then have your agriculture policy, your trade policy and your environment policy; they should all be complementary. Obviously things are working to different timescales, so we need to make sure that the Bill allows for the breadth of issues that agriculture can be impacted by. That is why, as part of that national food strategy, we think it is important that food delivers for consumers and that we tackle some of the challenges in the food system, whether that is climate change, dealing with obesity or food security issues.
We realise that there is limited scope within the Bill, compared with the strategy, but we should take every opportunity to make sure that we put the right incentives in the Bill to deliver on those wider things that matter to people.
Ruth Jones
Q
Sue Davies: Obviously Which? would say this, but it is really surprising that consumers are not featured in the Bill, when ultimately the Bill will shape the types of food choices we will have, potentially for decades. It is really important to make sure that the Bill recognises that we ultimately produce food to meet the needs and expectations of consumers, and to have a market where people want to buy the products. That is why we think we should ensure that the public money for public goods area is aligned with consumer needs and benefits, particularly public health and food safety. If we are talking about productivity and producing more food, we should recognise that that has to be done in a way that meets consumers’ expectations; not by using production methods that mean people will ultimately not want to buy or eat the food. That is where having that commitment to food standards in the Bill is really important.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Sue Davies: We have done a lot of consumer research over the years and have talked to people about their attitudes to different food technologies. About three or four years ago, we did quite a big project with Sir Mark Walport and the Government Office for Science looking at food system challenges and carrying out public dialogues in different parts of the country. What comes out from those dialogues and our wider research is that people really want to have a more open discussion about what the risks and benefits are. It seems that people do not really know enough about it. They want to be convinced that, if technologies are being used, they are being looked at in the full range of possibilities and alternatives. People are more nervous about technologies like gene editing than, say, the use of precision agriculture. Often in these debates, we start from the technology and look at how it can be used, rather than looking at what the problem is, what the range of options is, and why we are deciding that that is the right approach.
The other thing that comes across really clearly is that people expect there to be strong, independent oversight. It is concerning that when we talk about the use of technologies, you often hear some people call for deregulation and less oversight, when all our experience is to the contrary: you do not want to over-regulate and have an overly burdensome system, but people want to know that things are being done in the public interest, and that there is a clear understanding of any safety issues or wider environmental risks before we go down the route of using some of these technologies.
People are open to technology, but they want to know exactly why it is being used and whether it is the best approach. The only way to do that is that to make sure that, if we are looking at using these technologies, there is proper public engagement and understanding of them. The retailers and others in the food industry are obviously key, in terms of their understanding of whether people would want to buy products produced using these methods.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Sue Davies: All the research shows that it is quite a straightforward risk-benefit analysis. If you are ill, you will take something that you think is more risky but might make you better. If it is about maintaining health, people expect there to be a higher barrier.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Sue Davies: It is not something that we have carried out any research on, to be honest. It is not something that we have particularly worked on. As I say, when we have asked people about labelling information, most of them feel that we have quite a good level of information. Certainly, the areas that come out most strongly where people would like more clarity are things like making more sustainable choices. Animal welfare issues are important. We did a report in the last issue of Which? that looked at the different assurance schemes that are available to help you make sustainable choices. They all covered different elements of sustainability, so it is difficult for a scheme to help you make a choice. There is a lot more scope in that sort of area to improve labelling. Method of slaughter is not something that we have asked about recently.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Sue Davies: I think there are still cases where the way foods are presented does not meet the actual way they are produced. When we ask people about their expectations, though, people are often surprised: they may think that welfare standards are higher than they actually are, and then when you explain, they are often quite surprised about what is the minimum—what is free range, what is organic or whatever. It is certainly an area where people want more information.
We also did a report on chicken welfare in, I think, the November issue of Which? and it was quite interesting to ask the different retailers about their stocking densities for chickens and to see the variation, even within the current legal framework, between individual retailers. That went down very well; I think people found it very useful information.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Sue Davies: It is really good that in the Bill there is, obviously, the potential for financial assistance, and animal welfare is a clear criterion for that. I think that that is right. Whether it is in the Bill or the food strategy, I think there needs to be a mechanism to look at how we improve labelling.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Sue Davies: I suppose that the Bill will also cover the marketing standards that fall under the common agricultural policy, which cover everything from breakfast products like jams to poultry. So there is an element within the Bill where that could be covered. We have had concerns that the marketing standards under the common agricultural policy have been developed very separately from other food standards and very much from a producer-only perspective, rather than by thinking about what the end consumer might want. I think that there is an opportunity, if we are reviewing any of those standards, to make sure that they are meeting consumer needs as well.
The Chair
If there are no more questions, let me thank you on behalf of the Committee for the evidence that you have given this afternoon. Thank you very much.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
Westminster Hall
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Apprenticeships: SMEs
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered apprenticeships in small and medium-sized enterprises.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
Apprenticeships should be the perfect vehicle for meeting the challenges of social mobility, bridging the skills gap and raising productivity. With the most recent Office for National Statistics data showing that productivity is 30% higher in France and 35% higher in Germany, our widening productivity gap cannot be ignored if we are to compete successfully and obtain the supposedly easy post-Brexit trade deals promised by the Government. Having run my own small start-up construction business in Scotland, I know full well the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises investing in their people. Those that fail to do so stagnate and start to go backwards.
In previous years, employer spending on training in the UK had fallen and was low compared with other advanced economies, so there was a clear need to take action to move more employers towards investing more in the skills of their workforce. It was also vital to improve progression in apprenticeships. Only 4% of our 25-year-olds hold a level 4 or level 5 technical qualification as their highest qualification, compared with 20% in Germany, where apprenticeships are taken up by many more young people and are viewed as a high-status option for school leavers. Sadly, the Government’s rushed implementation of the apprenticeship levy resulted not in an increase in apprenticeships and opportunities for the most disadvantaged, as was hoped and very much needed, but in the exact opposite. That is devastating, especially considering the huge impact that apprenticeships can have on young people’s lives.
Just last week, I met brilliant apprentices working in my constituency. I know that their input is hugely appreciated by the many businesses in Slough. Slough is a huge business hub, with the largest singly owned trading estate in the whole of Europe and more corporate headquarters than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland put together, so we know a fair bit about businesses and the importance of apprenticeships. Unfortunately, far from turbo-charging our businesses and helping them further, the levy has left many of them hobbled and unable to fill vacancies, address their skills shortages or meet opportunities for expansion.
Since the introduction of the levy, apprenticeship starts in large employers—those with 250 or more employees —have fallen by 9%, but the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises has been disastrous. Apprenticeship starts have fallen by 34% in small businesses and 42% in medium-sized enterprises. Even in my constituency, despite the excellent Slough Academy, which supports growth in high-demand areas such as social care and planning in the council, overall apprenticeship starts have not reached the level they were at before 2017-18. That reflects the trend across the country. It is estimated that between 30,000 and 40,000 SME apprenticeship vacancies remain unfilled, and 75,000 apprenticeships in SMEs could be lost by the end of the year. That is 75,000 people who will be denied the opportunity to work, train and gain the confidence that comes with successfully completing qualifications.
The failure of the levy for SMEs is compounded by the fact that those “disappeared” apprenticeships were most likely to have been taken up by young people who were starting with much lower qualifications—the very group we might imagine that a revamped apprenticeship scheme should help the most. The latest Government data show that the proportion of apprenticeship starts at level 2 fell from 63% in 2011-12 to a mere 36% in 2018-19, and the proportion of people aged under 19 on an apprenticeship has fallen to a mere 25%. In the context of participation in the apprenticeship system being at its lowest level since 2010-11, with 72,400 fewer people participating in 2018-19 than in 2017-18, those figures further underline the inadequacies of the Government’s implementation of the levy. The largest reductions have been in the north-west and the north-east—areas that are in desperate need of job opportunities and economic growth.
What is behind the decline? Under the levy in England, employers are required to pay 0.5% of their payroll above £3 million per year into a so-called ring-fenced digital account to be spent on apprenticeships. That is topped up by a 10% public contribution. If levy funds are not used within two years, they expire. The system was based on the expectation that many employers would not spend all their levy funds. Those unspent funds were intended to cover most of the costs of apprenticeships for the SMEs that do not pay the levy. At the time, the Government estimated that around 50% would remain unspent and so available to non-levy payers.
Some levy payers found ways—some might say predictably—to increase their spending. Indeed, the Sutton Trust warned in November 2017 that an estimated two thirds of businesses’ apprenticeship schemes merely converted existing employees and certified existing skills, and that the levy may encourage more of that so-called conversion and rebadging as a way for large employers to reclaim their money. That looks to be what has happened.
A recent Ofsted report on employees on an Institute of Leadership and Management course stated:
“Most apprentices and their line managers do not know that they are on an apprenticeship. Too many apprentices do not develop the…knowledge, skills and behaviours needed to progress in their careers…Most apprentices do not develop substantial new knowledge and skills or build on what they already know…They just complete their management qualification.”
That is a testament to what has gone wrong. That case and others led Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman to declare:
“We have seen examples where existing graduate schemes are in essence being rebadged as apprenticeships. This might meet the rules of the levy policy, but it falls well short of its spirit.”
That is why, last year, the National Audit Office expressed its concern that the use of the levy for new high-level apprenticeships was really
“public money…being used to pay for training that already existed in other forms.”
Even where higher-level qualifications are appropriate and well designed, they are expensive, so the money the Government expected to be available for SMEs to fund apprenticeships simply is not there—to the tune of around £1 billion, according to best estimates.
With the introduction of the levy came the development of new apprenticeship standards to replace existing frameworks. Those standards were designed by employer groups and are intended to establish more robustly the skills and competencies that an apprentice is expected to achieve. Again, however, the Government underestimated the cost of implementation, which has simply added to the financial pressures SMEs face in funding their apprenticeships. That has prompted calls for a proper review of what is and what is not an apprenticeship, and how the different kinds of in-work training are best targeted and delivered.
Given the reports by Ofsted, the National Audit Office and others, such a review is certainly required. Many stakeholders make the case for a more flexible approach, such as a skills levy that allows employers to invest in other forms of high-quality training. Such an approach would need extra funding from widening the levy to cover more employers, from raising contribution rates or from Government. However, the burning issue is that there is a crisis in apprenticeships for SMEs that is depriving those who most need either a solid start to their working life or a helping hand to get up and out.
As I said, disadvantaged people of all ages are disproportionately clustered at the lower levels of apprenticeships and are significantly more likely to be studying for level 2 or level 3 than for higher or degree-level apprenticeships. The levy has led not only to a dramatic fall in level 2 and level 3 apprenticeship provision, but to people from deprived communities being squeezed out of higher-level apprenticeships. In 2015-16, before the introduction of the levy, the most deprived 20% of the population accounted for 21.9% of apprenticeship starts at level 4 or higher, but by 2018-19 the figure had dropped to a mere 16.4%. That is why the Social Mobility Commission warned that
“a two-tier system…based on apprentices’ backgrounds”
may be emerging.
Almost one in five young people does not achieve five GCSEs at grades 4 to 9—A* to C in old money—or the equivalent in alternative qualifications. They will naturally face greater challenges moving from level 1 to level 2, but maths and English provision in apprenticeships—functional skills—is funded at only half the rate that would apply to any other learner. Employers want to be able to deliver and provide young people with the opportunity to succeed, but the current funding arrangements make that extremely difficult. The Minister must respond to that funding deficit, and it must be met. The Government need to acknowledge the extra challenges that those young people face, and the extra provision that they need from their employers and training providers, by increasing financial support for level 1 and 2 apprenticeships.
If we truly wish to close the skills gap and raise the floor of our nation’s skills, we must go further. There have been calls from all sides to increase the flexibility of the levy to stimulate more high-quality and accessible apprenticeships. One such change would be to allow employers to spend a portion of their levy funds on pre-apprenticeship programmes and other initiatives such as outreach programmes, with the aim of widening access to apprenticeships in under-represented groups. Further, the entitlement to attain skills at level 3 should be as accessible through the apprenticeship system as it is for young people taking college courses. The Trades Union Congress has suggested introducing a new right to progress for apprentices who have completed a level 2 apprenticeship, which would entitle them to study for a level 3 apprenticeship and trigger the necessary funding.
The lack of proper funding for some apprenticeships is, as I said, having a disastrous effect on entire sectors of our economy, such as the care sector. Many care homes are SMEs. The sector is typically low margin and low wage, and it relies on apprenticeships for the development of new and existing staff. The funding for adult care worker level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships is simply not enough to provide a quality apprenticeship programme and is leading to an over-reliance on untrained staff. It is forcing some providers out of business altogether.
I am led to believe that a monthly online apprenticeship reserve funding system is being trialled for SMEs. It has been likened to someone trying to buy a ticket for a concert, sitting at a computer, hitting refresh and hoping that this time they will get lucky. That is no way to run a programme. On top of that, the name of the apprentice is required before funding is reserved, so if an employer wants to hire an apprentice, they must do so, or at least make an offer, before funding has even been secured. That makes it easier to grant apprenticeships to existing employees instead of hiring in, as we should be looking to do. It is another barrier to those who are seeking a fresh start.
The unanimous view of SMEs is that the levy, as currently constituted, is failing—and that is to put it mildly. It is failing them, and it is failing their current and future employees. It is failing tens of thousands of the people who most need help and, by extension, the communities in which they live. The Government must listen to the broad coalition of voices—including Labour, businesses and training providers—calling for a guarantee of Government funding for SME apprenticeships, independent of the levy, through the provision of a funded pot for SMEs. I very much look forward to hearing the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), further explain the excellent work that she and her team have undertaken in that respect. We need the Government to step up to the plate. The level of funding needs to be guaranteed to give certainty to SMEs and training providers alike, so that both parties can provide the apprenticeships that are needed and plan effectively for the future.
Education can provide equality of opportunity for everyone, at every stage of life, if there is an accessible progression pathway for everyone. It is vital that the opportunity presented by the reform of apprenticeships is used to create such a pathway. The current system prevents young people from starting their career journey, because the system fails to provide the support they need. Such a lack of support is denying SMEs opportunities to recruit the apprentices they require to help to address the productivity gap.
National Apprenticeship Week has just ended. I hope the Minister used it to listen carefully to those in the sector who have been lobbying the likes of my hon. Friend and me, and I hope that the Minister will take that advice on board to improve the system that the Government created. In this post-Brexit world, our country cannot afford to get this wrong.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
It is always a privilege to serve under your stewardship, Mr Davies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for raising this crucial debate. It is particularly important to me, as a former engineering apprentice who came through this process.
I left school with CSEs, and I walked into the careers office one day and they said, “What do you want to do?” I was not sure whether I wanted to stay on or do something else. My dad worked for BSA in Birmingham, where they made motorcycles and firearms. It was one of the biggest motorcycle manufacturers in the world at the time, but unfortunately only a few are now made, in Meriden—not as many are manufactured in the United Kingdom as we would like. I explained what my dad did as a capstan setter operator—that is probably a foreign language to most people in the Chamber, but he operated a repetitive component-manufacturing machine. They said, “Oh, right. Do you want to go into an engineering apprenticeship scheme?” and I said yes, so they offered a year of off-the-job full-time training at Garretts Green Technical College, a local college that no longer exists. Within six months of starting, we were offered interviews, and I was privileged to be offered an apprenticeship at Delta Metals, Delta Tubes as it was then, which unfortunately no longer exists, either. I made my way through various phases of that and ended up at Birmingham Polytechnic, which also no longer exists in that form and is now Birmingham City University. I learned a huge amount about engineering and afterwards I was able to set up a small manufacturing and engineering company with my friend Mr Olley, who is a great friend to this day. That allowed us to move forward. As my hon. Friend the Member for Slough said, it allowed me to move forward as an individual, perhaps above the position that I had been in, and to grow up, both physically and in terms of my skills. It was a huge opportunity.
I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Slough about what the Government are doing at the moment with the levy, and about the onerous conditions the levy puts on the employer, as it stands. Employers are under a huge amount of pressure to try to conform to something that they cannot. They find it very difficult to come to terms with some factors, as eloquently explained by my hon. Friend.
If we are going to look at upgrading more people, particularly post Brexit, we need a far greater understanding of the engineering and manufacturing sector. Of course, the services sector is important, but we cannot rely on it alone given the downturns we have had in overall GDP when the financial sector collapsed. Germany does not suffer as much because it has a huge engineering and manufacturing sector, which acts as a boost and a steady hand. Now, with our independent status, we need to have more of that independence ourselves, to be able to move forward.
I will say a couple of things about a success story in my constituency, Mr Davies. The Engineering Employers’ Federation has a training school for engineers that takes on young people, both with and without qualifications, and provides apprenticeships that take them to the highest level. The engineering college was set up almost seven years ago by EEF using a levy from its members, above the apprenticeship levy, to provide the capital costs. I am happy to show the shadow Minister and the Minister around, should they wish to visit; a number of Ministers and others have already done so.
The initiative is a tribute to engineering and manufacturing. It started with about 300 apprentices; there are now four times that number. The majority of the commitment has come from local employers in the sector, who have put in a huge amount of the capital costs. The college still cannot get capital costs from the Government. As one would imagine, training in engineering requires practical lessons so people can operate the different machinery and equipment. Those involved have done a superb job putting the college together. I encourage the Minister to look at how we support engineering and manufacturing to move forward with the right sort of apprenticeships.
Our technical colleges used to do that, but there are now very few of them. There is only one real college, South and City College, Birmingham, that does any real manufacturing, engineering and building construction training at all. We are at a loss to get new engineers to come forward and to develop an understanding of the practices needed for people grow their skills. Two or three people from different disciplines in engineering can set up a company to create something, just as I did with my friend Mike Olley. That makes the growth; it is what makes the country grow.
We have not had that type of training for too long—since the 1980s, when Delta Metals was closed down and bought up by a company for its order book. I am not being parochial about this at all, but all our equipment was bought up. At that time, there were three manufacturers of copper tubes: IMI, Wednesbury Tube and Delta Tubes. We were sold because we were the most advanced. All of our equipment was taken to China and installed there. We were years ahead of Wednesbury Tube, which is now owned by a Swiss company. IMI still just about exists. We lost our capacity, but then there are complaints about being flooded with foreign goods. If we do not train our own people and if we do not have the capacity in engineering and manufacturing, that is what happens. We lose that market.
Following the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, I am pleading for us to have that capacity. We want to move our people forward, and for our country to have a strong base in engineering and manufacturing in the economy. That is important because we are now independent and moving forward on our own. The shadow Minister has done some great work in this job; I commend her for the interest she has taken. I am sure she will continue to do that, particularly in engineering and manufacturing, which is a subject close to my heart. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Slough for raising this issue and for his great work.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for bringing forward the debate. Westminster Hall may not be as busy as he would like; I am sure that is not because it is Thursday and the day the House rises. It is probably because there was a debate earlier in the weak about the apprenticeship levy. Just like buses, we get two debates in one week, following National Apprenticeship Week.
The hon. Member for Slough set out the issues around the apprenticeship levy, and the challenges for small and medium enterprises, very well. I was interested to hear him say that he had his own start-up construction company, so maybe I need to have a chat with him about his experiences at some point. I was concerned to hear the numbers that he gave, including 30,000 to 40,000 current vacancies and the prediction that 75,000 places will disappear, going forward. We need to hear what the UK Government will do to rectify that.
We also heard about what was described as a downward trend in the number of apprentices since the apprenticeship levy came in. That is not replicated in Scotland, where there has been an increase in the number of apprenticeships created year on year for eight years; I will come back to that.
A big concern was raised—again, I want to hear what the Minister says about it—about what is happening with unspent levies, and the fact that there is manipulation of people’s classification within their work environment, so that companies can draw down the levy money without creating the net benefit and additional positive outcomes, which are key when accessing money from the levies. We need to hear more about the governance of that.
I was struck by the opening remarks by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), who said that he did not know what he wanted to do when he left school. I was like that myself at one point. We have taken very different career paths, but I do not know what it says about the calibre of politicians, Mr Davies, when there are two of us here who did not know what we were going to do, but have somehow ended up in this place.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted a good success story with the training offered by EEF. It is fantastic that it has managed to get together, and provide, the capital funding for the college, and that the number of apprentices has increased from 300 to 1,200. That shows what can be done when employers work together and are not seen as being in competition with one another. I hope that that collaborative approach can be replicated elsewhere. The UK Government have not provided the capital funding, which is something the Minister needs to consider. Interestingly, in his closing remarks the hon. Gentleman spoke about the negative effects of globalisation, with the UK suffering by losing skills because they, and machinery, are going elsewhere and the UK market is being flooded.
I am sure we all agree that the principle of apprenticeships is a good thing. From one perspective, in recent years there has been a change in attitude. For a while the prevailing attitude was that young people went either into further education or on to the scrapheap. Clearly, further education is not for everybody. We need to retain our manufacturing base, and in terms of that, and in terms of the construction industry, apprenticeships are clearly a fantastic route into the workplace. They get people trained in the work, provide suitable qualifications and increase productivity, which is the right way to do it.
As the hon. Member for Slough said, apprenticeships should not be used to plug temporary employment gaps. They should only be used when an apprenticeship can lead to a full-time position, and apprenticeships should be matched to skills shortages. That was not always the case in the construction industry. My dad used to work for a plumbing company, so this is not a new thing; at the time it would often happen that somebody would serve their apprenticeship and once that came to an end, they were basically paid off and had to try and find a job elsewhere. Sure, they had a qualification, which was good, but they did not have the relevant work experience, which made finding a job more difficult.
We need to ensure that any apprenticeships that are created and funded lead to positive destinations. I know that the business outlook can change, so there might not be the same opportunity for somebody once they are qualified at the end of the apprenticeship; but, that being the case, no company should be able to continue to replace apprentices if it is not keeping the original ones on in permanent positions.
We have heard that since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy there has been a drop in the number of apprenticeships in England. One third of businesses reportedly view the apprenticeship levy primarily as a tax, without the actual training benefits. If that is the perception out there in the real world, it is not a good one. The British Retail Consortium has said that the levy is failing retailers, and the hospitality trade has voiced similar concerns for its sector.
It appears that the apprenticeship levy is a clumsy tool and is not doing everything that it should, or bringing in the support that was heralded. The Library briefing notes that the Centre for Vocational Education Research report confirms that the drop in apprentices is due to the levy and the funding arrangements. The research identifies the cost, complexity and inflexibility of the levy as the key issues. Indeed, the British Chambers of Commerce has reported that,
“for SMEs in particular, the new rules have added to the barriers, complexity and cost of recruiting and training staff”.
While the UK Government had a laudable target of 3 million new apprenticeships by 2020, in June 2019 they had to admit that they would miss that target. It would be good to hear from the Minister what the UK Government are doing to rectify that situation.
As I mentioned earlier, Scotland is making excellent progress to ensure that our young people have the skills they need to exploit current and future opportunities. That is despite the fact that, in introducing the apprenticeship levy, the UK Government stepped on a devolved responsibility; companies and large organisations in Scotland pay the levy, but the actual training aspect is devolved and falls within the remit of the Scottish Government, who have to work with employers to mitigate that unwelcome tax.
In so doing, the Scottish Government have had discussions with key stakeholders and have established a national retraining partnership, with the aim of helping workers and businesses to prepare for future changes in their markets by enabling the workforce to upskill and retrain where necessary. This ambitious commitment to skills builds on a number of initiatives already in place to boost employment and create positive pathways for young people. That has meant extending the £10 million flexible workforce development fund to continue to support investment in skills and training. Employers are encouraged to link with colleges to learn more about the opportunities available to them. That happens with my local college, Ayrshire College, which tailors its courses to suit the needs of local employers, helping to fill that skills gap and ensuring that people going through college courses achieve the qualification that best suits them so that they can continue successfully in the workforce.
All that work is paying dividends: the Scottish Government have now exceeded their apprenticeship target every year for eight years in a row; there are clear lessons there for the UK Government. Skills Development Scotland statistics show that the Government’s commitment to increasing apprenticeships to 30,000 by 2020 is on course to be met as well. In Scotland, apprenticeships currently on offer include 900 graduate opportunities, up from 270 in the previous year, and that figure will rise to 1,300.
Some 93% of Scotland’s young people now go on to positive destinations—the highest percentage of anywhere in the UK. That is the most important thing: access to apprenticeships, training or whatever else is about a positive end destination. We must ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises are able to gain access to that and provide those positive destinations.
We also need to consider how Government procurement should be used to enhance the development of apprenticeships. Companies building new schools in my local authority area are providing new apprenticeships through the contractual arrangements. That is a good thing: we are getting new schools, which will enhance the education of young people, while some of our local young people are getting the necessary apprenticeships out of it, which will hopefully lead to lifelong careers in the construction industry.
The UK Government also need to look at that idea when it comes to the contracts for difference auctions in the energy market. I have long argued that the bid process should have a quality assessment aspect that incentivises the use of local supply chains, which obviously includes the use of small and medium-sized enterprises. That quality assessment could go further and incentivise local supply chain and job creation, namely apprenticeships, in these smaller companies.
That is a process that is doable. Sometimes the Government argue that it cannot be done, because of the European procurement rules, but that is nonsense. As long as there is a transparent system for quality assessment, it falls within European procurement rules—and of course we are going to hear about the Brexit dividend, so maybe that is something that UK Government could do quite quickly, now that they say Brexit is done.
We, as energy bill payers, are funding the CfD mechanism; while price is important, it seems ridiculous that at the moment the decision is down to price alone when, with a very small increase in what we pay, we could create apprenticeships, create a sustainable local supply chain and grow skills. We heard earlier about a skills drain; if we did that, we would attract and grow those skills and be able to export them worldwide. I call on the Minister to take cognisance of that and have discussions with other members of our Government. I look forward to hearing what the shadow Minister and Minister have to say.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for securing this debate. I must say it is also a pleasure to see the Minister still there in her place opposite me, to continue our discussions from Tuesday.
I will start by commenting on my hon. Friend’s speech. He started with an interesting point about the differences between Germany and England in the status of apprentices and how they are viewed. I saw that when the Education Committee went to Germany, and I was struck by how fantastic the system is there. Of course, there are structural differences that mean we cannot replicate it here in this country, but I think we can all agree that we need to keep selling the idea of apprenticeships, talking them up and explaining what a good thing they are for our country.
My hon. Friend made a very good point about the falling apprenticeship numbers in small businesses. Out of all the figures that he mentioned, the one that struck me was the figure of 34% in small businesses. Small businesses have been hit even harder than medium-sized businesses by the apprenticeship levy. He spoke passionately about apprenticeships in Slough; in fact, I was at the event with him where he talked to some of his fantastic apprentices from Slough, and I was really impressed by their passion and dedication to their training.
My hon. Friend was right to highlight the falling numbers of level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships. Very few people know at 16, or even at 18, what they want to do when they move on in life, so we need to start where people are at. If people are not ready to start at level 3 —if they have not been able to achieve as successfully as we would all like them to in school—they need that level 2 start to enable them to make progress and to fulfil their ambition and achieve social mobility. I am sure that we all agree with that.
My hon. Friend is also right to point out that a question was raised in the debate on Tuesday about the levy for businesses—I am in favour of that levy—and whether the Government expected all businesses to use it. There seem to be conflicting evidence and statements about that, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts. Are businesses expected to use all of the levy themselves, or was the intention behind the design that a certain amount of the levy would be kept and used by SMEs? There seems to be a lack of clarity over whether it is a tax that larger businesses contribute to, which can be distributed to small businesses, or whether it is just a system to allow individual businesses to get the money back for themselves.
I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend raised the question of maths and English and the extra support that is needed. This might not be the right debate in which to talk about that, but I hope that the Department will take it seriously, because we have created a system where the insistence on having people resit their qualification in their first year, even when they are on a two-year course, is causing many people to fail. We have to explore ways to enable everybody to succeed. I would like the Department to go away and think about why it insists that people on a two-year level 2 course should resit at the end of their first year. Why not give them that extra year to practise and develop their skills before they have to sit their exam? Can we not be a little bit more open-minded and creative in coming up with solutions to enable everyone to achieve the maths and English qualifications that we all agree they need?
I really enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood)—he has gone, but I will let him know. It was nice to hear him talk about how his father’s interest in engineering got him involved, and how he was not sure what he wanted to do. It was a heart-warming speech. I look forward to visiting his constituency and seeing the examples he gave. He is quite right: we need to invest in engineering and manufacturing skills, and support the making of British goods here in Britain. It has been a source of frustration to me for a long time that we continue to import more and more when we could grow our own, and develop and make things in this country, giving people high-skilled jobs and helping to grow our economy. I hope the Minister will comment on how the apprenticeship levy can do that.
I do not usually comment on the remarks of Scottish National party spokespeople, but I really liked the interesting point that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) made about the retention of apprentices, which I had not considered before. If we fund apprenticeships, as a Government or through the levy, should we not expect businesses that have had access to those public funds to retain the apprentices? That is an interesting idea to explore, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that.
I think we all agree about the importance of apprenticeships, not only for the productivity of our country but for individuals and social mobility. We all agree that SMEs are really valuable to our economy. In fact, during the debate on Tuesday, one Member pointed out that in Northern Ireland, where their constituency is, there are few large, levy-paying businesses, so it is nearly all SMEs. I have not yet had the chance to crunch the data on this, so it will be interesting to see whether the Department has analysed the areas of the country where there are fewer levy-playing businesses, and looked at whether we have therefore created coldspots and areas in which people lack opportunities to access apprenticeships.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
One industry prevalent in small business is hair and beauty. Routes into hair and beauty and other apprenticeships include the level 3 qualification, which the Government just cut thousands of, and T-levels. T-Levels will be the major route into higher-level apprenticeships, but they are not yet ready, and in the hair and beauty industry they will not be ready for years. The pathway to these apprenticeships needs to be solid, small businesses need to know what is happening and the funding needs to come through. Otherwise, we will see an even further drop in apprenticeships, on top of the challenges of the apprenticeship levy.
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I have questioned the whole concept of T-levels before. If they are a solution to a problem, what problem were they trying to solve? I have not quite been able to figure that out yet. They almost seem to be trying to ram themselves into a system where they might not necessarily be needed or, indeed, wanted. He makes an important point: if we take away existing qualifications before establishing the T-level, we will leave a gap. What will happen to the people who want to access those qualifications during the gap? Perhaps we might debate T-levels after recess and dig into the question in a lot more detail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough mentioned the fall in SME apprenticeships, which has come about as a direct result of the levy. There has been a fall of 23% overall, with a fall of 171,000 in SME apprenticeships. That is down an estimated 49% since the levy was introduced, and it is a huge fall. Particularly concerning to me, as I mentioned on Tuesday, is the quite shocking 20% fall in 16-to-18 apprenticeships. From the reports I have seen, SMEs receive only half as much apprenticeship funding compared with April 2017, when the levy was introduced. Traditionally, SMEs have been the largest recruiters of young apprentices, and they have generally been the recruiters of apprentices at a starter level. It will impact on our ability to grow our own talent if we cut off opportunities for young people and cut off the lower levels that we need.
On Tuesday, the Minister said:
“The apprenticeship levy is helping businesses large and small to access the high-quality training that they need.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 258WH.]
I have to say that the Minister may be a little bit mistaken, because I am not sure that the apprenticeship levy is helping small businesses to access the high-quality training that they need. As I just said, I do not think that they can actually access all the funding that they need.
In Tuesday’s debate, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) pointed out that 300 potential SME apprenticeships have been lost at Staffordshire University because of the current funding system. Not only are the apprenticeships not helping people at the beginning of their career, at level 2 and 3, but they are not helping those at university and at the other end of their career, at level 6 and above.
As mentioned, the Centre for Vocational Education Research report says that the fall in apprenticeships is because of the introduction of the levy. The report says:
“For smaller enterprises which are less likely to be directly impacted by the Levy, the strong decline in starts may be linked to a combination of adapting to the new funding system, the constraints on the pool of funding actually available for apprenticeship training, and the ongoing switch”.
It is because we do not have the funding needed to actually move them forward.
The Minister also spoke on Tuesday of the award-winning digital service, saying that it would
“support employers to manage their funds and choose the training they need from a register of approved providers”,
and pointed out that that would benefit smaller employers by
“moving away from the previous procured contract system to give SMEs more choice than ever”.—[Official Report, 11 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 258-59WH.]
With the greatest respect to the Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough pointed out, putting SMEs on the digital platform will put them in a similar position to someone who is trying to buy concert tickets, and who has to jump on as early possible and press the buy button before someone else gets there. Even increasing the numbers by 15,000 will not be enough to cover the 49% decrease that we have already seen. Giving people more access to a system that does not have enough money just means that they have greater access to having no money; it does not solve the problem. If the Government are to put them on the digital system, they need to fund the digital system to enable it to work.
The levy money is, indeed, running out. There is not enough money, which is why, as has been confirmed by the Minister with responsibility for skills, the National Audit Office, the permanent secretary at the Department for Education and, more recently, the new CEO of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education—IFATE; there are too many acronyms in this job—apprenticeships in SMEs will not go back to pre-levy numbers. That is why I keep pushing this. There is a joined-up message from businesses, the Labour party, the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses—from everybody—that the Government have to put in £1.5 billion in funding for SMEs. The digital solution that has been mentioned will not suffice.
The Minister may have seen a letter in the Financial Times that highlights the point I was making. Surprisingly in education, because it does not always happen, lots of people agree and are saying the same thing:
“The chief executive of the employer-led Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education also believes that the apprenticeship levy needs to be topped up with additional Government funding to address the shortage of funds available for apprenticeships offered by smaller businesses. Her comments follow similar concerns expressed by Ofsted’s chief inspector that the levy is not working in a way which would satisfy the Government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda across the UK regions.”
The letter was signed by Mike Cherry of the Federation of Small Businesses; Mark Dawe of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers; David Hughes of the Association of Colleges; Doctor Sue Pember CBE from Holex; and more. These people all say the same thing: the Government need to put money into the SME budget to enable SMEs to offer apprenticeships.
The Minister said on Tuesday that she is
“keeping the apprentice system and levy under constant review to understand how it works for employers of all sizes, and most importantly how it can deliver for our economy and for social mobility.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 258WH.]
Will she dig into that a little bit more and explain what review has been undertaken, its timescale, who is included in it, when we should start to see its outcomes and whether we should expect it to have occurred before the 11 March Budget? Will we see anything in the Budget to address the ongoing crisis in SMEs?
I point out a good example of local SME support in Manchester, which used a grant of £3,000 for non-levy paying SMEs in the region that have not employed an apprentice in the past two years. Creative solutions are starting to come out, and I hope that the DFE will explore this and find ways to offer such support.
I shall keep my request quite simple. In a nutshell, what we—in business, in the Labour party and in this unity of voice—would like to see is the Government committing to a ring-fenced and guaranteed non-levy budget of at least £1.5 billion and separate, segregated funding approaches between levy and non-levy paying employers. I am not saying that that will solve all the problems overnight, but it will alleviate the most immediate concerns and it will open up access for young people and people wanting to start at lower levels who want to work in SMEs.
This will be the last minute of my speech, because I have been talking for quite a long time. And now for something completely different, as they say. I want to mention the Back a Bid campaign: we are looking for the UK to host the 2027 WorldSkills championships. It is like an Olympics for skills whereby we have Team GB going abroad to compete and show the talents and skills that there are in this country. I hope that the UK will look at being one of the hosts for that. I hope that the Minister will press the new Chancellor of the Exchequer hard to enable the funding for a Government feasibility study to come through, to show how we can stand on the world stage as Global Britain and show off the skills and talents in our country by hosting the championships here in the UK and showing what brilliant, talented people we have. I hope that by 2027 many of those brilliant, talented people with great skills will be coming from SMEs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Michelle Donelan)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing the debate. I warmly welcome his keen interest in apprenticeships and am particularly grateful for his work to celebrate local apprenticeships last week, which, as he pointed out, was National Apprenticeship Week. I believe that he visited a number of his constituents, including those completing apprenticeships in companies such as KFC. As he kindly highlighted, last week was a fantastic opportunity to bring the whole apprenticeship community together and shine a spotlight on how amazing apprenticeships are for social mobility, for our economy and for moving people forward.
It is fantastic that more than 8,000 people in Slough alone have started an apprenticeship since 2010, and that is over a range of areas, ages and sectors within Slough’s community. The hon. Gentleman may also be aware of a Slough-based company called Resource Productions, an SME that does an excellent job working in the film industry, with clients such as Disney and Pixar. Dominique Unsworth is its CEO and also a Government SME apprenticeship ambassador. Her work is vital in order to connect more SMEs with apprenticeships. She has recognised just how important it is to employ apprentices and spread that message. I am pleased to note that, at Ms Unsworth’s request, the National Apprenticeship Service is hosting an event with Slough Aspire on 31 March. If I am still in post, I shall try to come along, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also attend.
As was pointed out, this is the second debate on apprenticeships this week. The first focused on the effectiveness of the apprenticeship levy. We should not forget that the apprenticeship levy funds apprenticeships for employers of all sizes, including SMEs that do not pay the levy. The Government recognise the need to ensure that our programme delivers for employers of all sizes—I know that that point was laboured by the hon. Gentleman and by other hon. Members. For that reason, we are making changes to benefit small employers, so that they can get the most out of apprenticeships. In fact, last month, we began to transition small employers that do not pay the levy on to the digital programme, which was mentioned. I will promise to meet the hon. Member for Slough so that we can look at the portal together to address some of the issues that he raised.
We are providing additional funding that will allow up to 15,000 more starts in the first three months of this year with smaller employers. That marks the start of the transition of smaller employers to using the apprenticeship service, allowing us time to listen to their feedback and time for smaller employers to become more familiar with our approach. We have already seen them take advantage of that in relation to early years education, pharmacy work and so on. The change will give employers a real choice of high-quality training provision and the opportunity to become more engaged in the process, as not having that has been one of the criticisms to date. Smaller employers will have access to a larger pool of training providers to deliver training that meets their needs and supports growth in their sector. To ensure that the transition is as simple and easy as possible for employers, we have worked with SMEs to test the service and have engaged with a range of employers and providers, acting on their feedback and instigating improvements.
We recognise that SMEs provide many people with their first step on to the career ladder, and we want to ensure that neither younger people nor smaller employers are denied the opportunity to participate in apprenticeship schemes. That is precisely why we provide £1,000 to both employers and training providers if they take on somebody aged 16 to 18. We know that younger people can face additional challenges in starting and applying for apprenticeship schemes. Social mobility is something that I am particularly focused on ensuring that we do better on, as is driving up the number of young apprentices on schemes, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We also pay 100% of the cost of training for the smallest employers—those with fewer than 50 employees—for that age group. Last month, we extended the use of levy transfers to cover the full cost of training for 16 to 18-year-olds and for receiving employers with fewer than 50 employees, helping more small employers to support apprenticeship starts.
We are proud to have launched, in January, the third phase of our Fire It Up campaign, which is aimed at changing the way people think about apprenticeships by demonstrating that they are an aspirational choice for anyone with passion and energy, and that they can enable them to go so very far.
We are ensuring that the message of apprenticeships is being heard in schools. That was touched on in the debate earlier this week. The National Apprenticeship Service has developed Amazing Apprenticeships—a website and resource portal for schools and teachers. Meanwhile, our Apprenticeship Support and Knowledge project is ensuring that teachers can promote apprenticeships to their students and have information available.
Just like the hon. Gentleman, we want more people to be able to benefit from the positive changes that we have made to apprenticeships, and across sectors—a point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood). I want to let him know that 200 of the 510 standards are for construction, engineering and manufacturing, and they have been designed in conjunction with businesses. That pool is growing all the time.
Mr Khalid Mahmood
I appreciate what the Minister has said, but the central question is this. When these apprenticeship training schools or colleges are set up, the capital support that they need for the equipment is more important. Will she look at that?
Michelle Donelan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. IfATE does evaluate the cost of putting on each apprenticeship scheme, and I regularly meet its representatives. In fact, I met them this week. I know that it is their priority for this year to look at the budgets that they set per standard.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) mentioned the question of money, and whether we had originally anticipated that all businesses would use all of the fund. We do not and did not anticipate that all businesses that paid the levy would need or want to use all the money; but we have put them in the driving seat to ensure that it works for them and their individual business model. We have been pleased to see the number of businesses that have transferred some of their unspent money to support smaller businesses within their supply chain.
The apprenticeship levy means that more money is available than ever—a big point to labour. This year we have increased available investment in apprenticeships to more than £2.5 billion—double what was spent in 2010-11 in cash terms. Our reforms mean that apprentices starting apprenticeships today benefit from apprenticeships that are of higher quality. Apprentices now receive substantial and sustained training, with their apprenticeships lasting a minimum of 12 months and featuring 20% off-the-job training and an assessment at the end.
We are pleased that the new apprenticeship standards across all levels are being designed and driven with industry, because they have to work for the employers. In fact, starts on standards represented more than 63% of all starts reported in 2018-19, showing that employers are already making the switch.
Quality is key. Today we have talked a lot about quantity and access, but we did not labour the point about quality. That is a priority of the Government, and has to be a priority for the businesses that the apprentices feed.
Alan Brown
On quality, will the Minister address the point about ensuring that when companies take on apprentices, there is a long-term future for them? What are the Government doing to ensure that there is not a continual churn of apprentices, as companies may use them to fill short-term labour gaps?
Michelle Donelan
Of course, an apprenticeship is a job. We want to ensure it stands out on any CV as a gold standard, lasting that apprentice throughout their career, whichever employer they go to in the future. Longevity within companies is important. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss how we can better foster the retention of apprentices. Our data to date is extremely promising.
To ensure that apprentices receive a high-quality training, we have strengthened the register of apprenticeship training providers. Any provider that receives an inadequate Ofsted assessment for apprenticeships will be removed altogether from the register. We realise that we must go further to ensure that these opportunities are accessible to people from all backgrounds, whether they are starting a job or progressing in their career.
Small and medium-sized enterprises, most of which do not pay the apprenticeship levy, are integral to our economy, as was mentioned. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) mentioned Government procurement. That is an essential issue. In the December 2019 Conservative party manifesto, we committed to a significant number of apprenticeships in every big infrastructure project that this Government undertake. In the next year, thousands of smaller employers will transition to the apprenticeship service, giving them more control over their apprenticeship needs.
We are listening to the concerns of businesses, including SMEs, about the apprenticeship levy, and we are committed to ensuring that the apprenticeship programme continues to provide opportunities for people of all backgrounds, fulfil the needs of employers of all sizes and deliver for the economy more broadly. I thank the hon. Member for Slough for highlighting apprenticeships in this debate and encouraging further focus on SMEs as we continue to improve the apprenticeship system. I assure him that we will continue to listen to all stakeholders, including SMEs, to ensure that the apprenticeship system works for everyone.
Mr Dhesi
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to engage in this important debate. I am particularly thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood). My experience running an SME pales into insignificance compared with his considerable experience, not only as an apprentice, but in the engineering industry. Therefore, the Minister and the Department should listen to his points, which he made with great passion, to inform effective changes accordingly.
I also thank the Scottish National party spokesman. He passionately explained the long-term future for apprentices and highlighted the problem of a competitive gap appearing, not only between us and our European and global partners, but between England and Scotland, because of the different routes we have taken.
I thank the shadow Minister. I know she is passionate about this subject and has been since long before she came to this place, given her background in education. She spoke about the need to ring-fence the sizeable £1.5 billion budget and the request to host the WorldSkills championship. The Minister did not respond to that last point, but I hope we can give the shadow Minister some good news soon.
I thank the Minister for her kind words and compliments about not only my Slough constituency, but the work of Resource Productions and my good friend Dominique Unsworth, whom I know is an excellent ambassador. The Minister also highlighted the plethora of apprentices in Slough. As I explained earlier, the explanation is that Slough is a huge business hub. It is the most productive town or city per capita in the entire country. I could wax lyrical about my constituency all day, but I can see you are yawning, Mr Davies, so I shall move swiftly on. I look forward to joining the Minister on 31 March. I thank her for her interest. I also look forward to meeting her, as she kindly suggested, and I hope the shadow Minister will accompany me to that meeting, so that we may look further into improving the current digital offer for apprentices and SMEs.
Overall, I am disappointed that, despite the disastrous figures we face, the Government are not looking to make a sea change in their approach to apprenticeships. I hope the Minister, with due consultation with others, will remove those restrictions infringing upon SMEs’ operations and introduce the necessary flexibility and funding. If we do not do that, we shall fail to address not only social mobility, but the huge productivity gap, and we shall let down that broad coalition of voices from industry, business, apprentices and political parties. It is important for the Minister to consider that; not to do so would be to let down not only those businesses but, more importantly, those young people, and thereby our country.
I thank you, again, Mr Davies, for chairing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their incredible contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered apprenticeships in small and medium-sized enterprises.
Office Block Conversions: Essex
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered permitted development rights for office block conversions in Essex.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I wish to talk about a pressing and ongoing issue in my constituency of Harlow that can be described only as ghetto building, human warehousing and social cleansing, under the expanded permitted development rights legislation.
Let me be clear: I believe in more housing. We face a crisis in this country, with 1.2 million people on the waiting list for social housing, and more than 682,000 people living in overcrowded accommodation. Yet studies by the University of Sheffield show that 94% of land in the UK is not built on. Housing consultant Colin Wiles even suggested that English golf courses occupy more land than homes.
I am pleased that the Government are accelerating our house building programme, with 1.3 million homes delivered since 2010. My constituency of Harlow is set to benefit from 16,500 new homes by 2033 from the Harlow and Gilston garden town alone. I agree in principle with the motivation behind expanded permitted development rights legislation, to make it easier for new housing to be built, and when the legislation came to the House of Commons, no party opposed it. I have even seen how permitted development rights can be a success. Edinburgh House, formerly home to Pearson publishers, has been converted by Land Charter Homes into quality apartments that are close to the station, with good transport links.
However, as the BBC “Panorama” documentary detailed last week, permitted development rights have been an unmitigated disaster for our town. The reasons for that are threefold. First, Harlow has become a prime location for such developments, with 12 former office block conversions, including Terminus House, Templefields and Redstone House. Harlow’s proximity to London and comparatively lower property prices make it a preferred location for developers; but, of course, the legislation does not require the builds to comply with local planning regulations. As such, around 1,100 units have been created in Harlow—a town of around 40,000 homes—none of which has been tested against the requirements of the local plan.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the creation en masse of new, relatively inexpensive accommodation in Harlow has made such properties an attractive option for councils outside Harlow looking to house individuals who have presented as homeless in their area. That has allowed predominantly London councils to socially cleanse their boroughs and to place vulnerable individuals, often with additional needs, into those converted properties as temporary accommodation. A freedom of information request that I made in July 2019 found that 32 Labour councils have made out-of-area placements.
In Harlow, we have had an influx, receiving placements from Barking and Dagenham, Enfield and Harrow, to name just a few. The placing authority does not have to notify Harlow Council, or offer any additional funding to cope with the increased demand on local services. The situation has been exacerbated by the fact that Harlow Council did not take up the full capacity of Terminus House when it was initially offered by Caridon Property to house Harlow residents in need of accommodation. We might well ask whether Harlow Council, had it accepted that offer, could have worked with landlords to ensure that the housing was of good quality. However, Caridon offered the remaining units to other authorities for rental, causing that increase in placements of individuals from other areas.
Thirdly, the impact of the influx on Harlow has been catastrophic. The rabbit-hutch housing developments have been a hive of criminal activity and drug abuse, placing huge pressures on our local police, A&E and social services. The “Panorama” investigation found that Essex police have been called to one site—Templefields—nearly 600 times in three years, and of course Harlow taxpayers bear the brunt of all such problems.
Our local schools are under immense pressure. One primary school, Tany’s Dell, looks after pupils from 20 families currently living in nearby temporary accommodation at Templefields House. The teachers have described issues relating to safeguarding, poor attendance, anxiety and even exhaustion from the 30-minute walk to school, undertaken by children some of whom are as young as just three years old. There are no buses or any proper public transport links around that building.
I believe passionately that it is my duty in Parliament to address social injustice. I am not blaming the individuals and families, who are taken away from their usual support networks of friends and family.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has always been a champion of social justice and, not for the first time, does this House a great service in bringing to our attention matters that are of both local import and national consequence. Does he agree that the report recently published by the commission that the Government tasked with looking at building beautiful places is highly pertinent to the debate? If we build homes in which people want to live, in places that they can feel proud of, social solidarity will be the result. I hope that the Government will shortly respond to those recommendations.
Robert Halfon
I thank my right hon. Friend. He is right: beauty is everything in building. When I initially saw the legislation on converting office blocks, I thought that it would be a good idea. I never imagined that loopholes in the legislation would allow the building of literal ghettos—of tiny rooms, as I will describe later—without any thought to beauty, aesthetics or the local environment for the poor residents who have to live in such places.
Often such properties are developed in areas never intended for residential dwelling. They are placed in isolated employment areas of the town with poor public transport routes, as I have just highlighted, making it difficult for residents to integrate socially and economically into the community. That is why it is so important that councils play at least some role in determining where such conversions take place. Individuals arrive, unfamiliar with social and counselling services and schools, and can feel unsupported in the new area. I am not against those vulnerable families—we have a duty to help every vulnerable family—but I have a duty to my constituents, and when families who have nothing to do with Harlow are brought to the town, they are separated from their own networks and support.
If families are not deemed vulnerable at the time of placement, it is easy for their new difficult living situation to affect that. Regularly in my constituency surgeries, and when I am out and about across our town of Harlow, I meet families living in such ghettos and hear moving stories. One lady, a recovering drug addict, was placed on a corridor where other residents were taking drugs right in front of her. That lady was sent from another borough. She had no links to Harlow, and was trying to get her life back on track, doing everything possible to get off drugs. She was a single parent, living in a room hardly bigger than the table behind me, and was now surrounded by drug dealers and people taking crack and other kinds of drugs. I ask the Minister how we can expect that lady, and so many others like her, to get their lives back on track living in such an unhealthy, unpalatable and unacceptable environment.
Ongoing support following placement is necessary if families are to thrive in their new area. Does the Minister not agree that in order to provide support, councils must first be notified of their placement and be given the funding to provide the care that vulnerable families need through local services? Permitted development rights were never meant to be about building ghettos. Nor were they about living space, and letting councils ship people off like cattle to the east of England and to Harlow.
I made this clear at the beginning of my speech: I know we need more housing, and I recognise that permitted development rights have made an important contribution in some parts of the country, but there have to be rules, particularly about quality, and councils must have some say in how the office blocks are converted. As one resident told me, the buildings were built for paper, not people, which sums it up exactly. If we truly want to help people, homes must be quality, safe spaces, not tiny box rooms where a single parent and a little baby live in a space where one can barely put one’s arms out without touching the walls and where the so-called kitchen is a yard away from the bed. They should not be housed in the same corridor as drug users and violent individuals.
In January, the Secretary of State confirmed to me in the Chamber that the review into permitted development rights
“will be taking forward any reforms necessary”.
He recognised that,
“All properties built in this country need to be safe.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 34.]
BBC’s “Panorama” documented cases where councils house individuals, couples and families in single rooms. Kitchens and toilets are metres apart. That is not a proper living environment. Shelter estimates that poor housing costs the NHS £1.4 billion a year. I ask the Minister again: in the Department’s review into permitted development rights, will he look beyond the numbers and consider the quality of housing being built? Will he work with colleagues to reform the legislation and make it a requirement in law that all properties, for temporary accommodation or not, meet minimum national space standards?
According to the House of Commons Library, local authorities have had powers to restrict permitted development rights under an article 4 direction at least since the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. Changes made in 2010 mean it is now for local planning authorities
“to confirm all Article 4 directions”,
making it easier for councils to invoke restrictions on permitted development rights. In Harlow, the council should have acted earlier. Only in March last year did it seek an article 4 direction in certain areas of the town.
The issue has been ongoing for years, but there is another factor. The Library confirmed to me that,
“residential premises created from office conversions under permitted development which add to an authority’s council tax base... count for the purpose of the New Homes Bonus payments”
received by local councils. So is there therefore very little financial incentive to take action to restrict the developments? That is particularly the case in Harlow, where the new homes bonus created a grant back to the council worth more than £1 million in 2018-19. With more than half of the new properties last year being office conversions, Harlow Council should do more to use the money to help individuals and provide security around the town.
Furthermore, sections 76 to 93 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 grant powers to the council to seek a closure order for a property on the grounds of either disorderly, offensive or criminal behaviour; serious nuisance to the public; or disorder near the premises. To be fair, the order is not a permanent solution. It lasts only six months, and other local authority closure powers are substantially limited in their scope, for example, to deal with environmental concerns.
Councils need stronger powers to take meaningful action against permitted development right conversions where they create issues for our town. Having said that, councils should do more to use the powers that are available to them. I believe ghettos such as Terminus House and Templefields should be closed down once and for all. Will the Minister ensure that the review provides stronger solutions to allow councils to deal with the issues that permitted development rights have created and that exist now?
The current state of permitted development rights raises numerous issues. First, councils take advantage of cheap converted office blocks to ship people off to the east, where they believe there is living space. Individuals with additional needs, who require support from their local authority, are being dumped in shoddy, rabbit-hutch housing, with the receiving authority having to pick up the pieces. There is no sense of a duty of care for the individuals. There is no notification and no extra funding granted to the receiving authority to provide resources, and certain parts of the country are disproportionately affected. In areas such as Harlow, the pressure on the taxpayer, local services and schools is enormous.
Vulnerable individuals are housed together in isolated areas, away from their support networks, creating a breeding ground for criminal and antisocial behaviour. Those trying to get their lives back on track must do battle with an unhealthy living environment every day. I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to spend 30 minutes watching the BBC’s “Panorama” programme, which makes an unanswerable case for the need for affordable and more quality housing.
The permitted development rights legislation has been disastrous in certain circumstances. The people of Harlow have been let down by councils and by flaws in the legislation that seems to support quantity over quality housing. They have been let down by the planning guidelines, which should give more powers to stop unsuitable accommodation in certain areas, and they have been let down by the fact that when the vulnerable families come through, there is no extra support or funding. I urge the Government and the Minister to take urgent action. In the 21st century—in 2020—we must put a stop to London boroughs’ social cleansing and the building of ghettos. We must put a stop to it all. We must give local authorities stronger powers to shut down human warehouses and ensure our councils have a real say on office block conversions.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing such an important debate. As in his constituency, permitted development rights have allowed the creation of poor quality homes in my constituency of Luton South in Bedfordshire—it is also, technically, in the east.
We have a severe housing crisis. Millions of people live in unaffordable, insecure or unsuitable homes. We have young people struggling to get on the housing ladder, renters stuck in unfit flats and families stuck on council house waiting lists. The Government are failing to get to grips with the symptoms of the crisis. They have not built enough council homes or homes that are actually affordable for local people. In the past decade in Luton, the council house waiting list has grown by 106%, but the overall number of council houses has reduced by 6% as a result of right to buy.
Some might see the converting of redundant office buildings to residential buildings as an attractive way to begin addressing the demand for housing. In some cases, it might make sense to regenerate vacant office space. However, the Government have completely misjudged the situation by incentivising the conversions through permitted development rights. Doing so has removed local authority oversight and simply provided developers with the opportunity to bypass thorough planning processes.
As PDR schemes are not bound by section 106 obligations, they are not required to meet quality guidelines, contribute to the provision of education or community benefits, or convert a certain percentage of flats into affordable homes. The Local Government Association estimates that in the past three years more than 10,000 affordable homes have been lost as a result of the rules. Research by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors shows that although the quality of office-to-residential schemes ranged from high to extremely poor, overall PDR schemes were “significantly worse” than homes that had been through the full planning process. Only 30% of homes built under the rules meet minimum space standards.
PDR schemes are amplifying the housing crisis and undermining the processes that ensure that people live in safe and suitable homes. Many local authorities are struggling to find temporary accommodation to meet their housing obligations and so are pushed into using converted office blocks to house vulnerable people and families with children. That is the only option that many authorities have, but the Government must recognise that it is an unsafe practice, because many who are living in temporary accommodation come from a variety of sensitive circumstances. To be frank, vulnerable people with a variety of complex needs are being homed in tiny flats that do not meet quality regulations and lack the necessary amenities. That is a recipe for disaster; it damages mental wellbeing and is conducive to antisocial behaviour. The right hon. Member for Harlow put that point so well.
It seems to me that the Government have been asleep at the wheel. They stressed the importance of the
“right homes in the right places”
in their 2017 housing White Paper, but in Luton the wrong homes are being created in the wrong places. For example, a number of PDR converted office buildings, such as Unity House, house families with children and are within an air quality management area along our four-lane inner ring road. That is allowed to happen only because PDR schemes bypass planning permission air quality regulations.
Another unwanted side effect of PDR is the harm that converted buildings do in relation to the regeneration and re-planning of town centres. Often the buildings that are converted are historic post-war developments with limited townscape and visual appeal that would have been strategic sites for redevelopment. In Luton we face that challenge in managing the town centre properly, given the spate of conversions in key locations, so when the Government proudly profess that 42,000 homes have been built as a result of the schemes, we have to question whether they understand that they are allowing the creation of poor provision.
Our constituents should not have to live like this. Local authorities are only working within the parameters set by the Government, and they have limited powers to act—usually once issues have arisen. Luton Council has had to implement an article 4 direction to remove the rights in certain areas. However, unfortunately for many of my constituents, the terrible housing has already been created.
We can never allow the desperate need for housing to be met at the expense of the quality of housing. We all deserve a home that supports our health and wellbeing, where we have enough space to live and where we feel safe. The Government must end the housing crisis by building homes that are safe, affordable and fuel-efficient and, crucially, that meet building regulations. I invite the Minister, again, to Luton South to see for himself.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
I have been quite generous about the scope of the debate, given that there is plenty of time available. Before I call the shadow Minister to respond, I ask her to try to relate her remarks to Essex in particular—and the Minister likewise.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I will stick to the subject. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing the debate. It is timely, given the “Panorama” programme that we saw a couple of weeks ago. I hope that if he has not already done so, the Minister will watch it. It was very powerful. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) on her contribution pointing out some of the problems with permitted development, not least of which is air quality. That had not yet been discussed, and it was interesting.
Permitted development is a symptom of the way the housing system has broken. The principle, as the right hon. Member for Harlow said, of making it easier to build housing, is clear, but the consequences since its introduction are obvious. It has not increased affordable housing, which is what we would hope for. The ad hoc nature of the development can be seen in Harlow, Luton and Croydon, and in Croydon it has meant overdevelopment of office space. There is now a gap, because businesses that want to come into the area cannot, as everything has been converted through permitted development. Also, a lot of quite unsavoury people are making quite a lot of money. That was obvious in the “Panorama” programme about permitted development in Harlow.
I think that permitted development was introduced to allow developers to bypass the normal planning process. It gets people off the hook in spatial terms, and with respect to the need for windows in flats, and it makes it possible for unsanitary, unsafe and unpleasant conditions to develop. Plenty of people have written about the issues and brought them to our attention, and many of the examples used are from the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Vicky Spratt has done a lot of work on the matter in the i newspaper, and has raised cases, including one in my constituency, where leaseholders have bought such properties through Help to Buy. So it is not only the planning situation that has made what we are talking about possible; the Government are also funding it through Help to Buy.
The Shelter report that came out of the “Panorama” programme was helpful and showed the scale of the problem. Inside Housing has been good at highlighting the issue, and has talked about the warehousing of poverty by the housing system—something that the right hon. Gentleman referred to. A good piece of work was done by Tom Copley in City Hall in London showing that only 0.4% of the new homes built under permitted development in London are affordable. More than half of the permitted development homes in London are smaller than the minimum space standard that one would hope to see.
Last year 12,000 homes were created under permitted development, and there were 5,000 in London. There were more than 600 in my borough of Croydon, but I will not talk too much about that. The Grenfell Tower fire showed how flawed the building regime system is. Permitted development is one part of the system that has created the problems described so well by the right hon. Member for Harlow. In total, 54,000 new housing units have been created by conversion from offices since 2016. However, in research by the Local Government Association it is estimated that more than 10,000 affordable homes would have been created under the normal planning process, but have been lost, because they were not created under permitted development. That is why Labour has committed to scrapping permitted development—not because we do not think offices should ever be converted to residential use, or because we do not want more homes to be built, but because we see the consequences of permitted development, which are grave.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors found that permitted development has
“allowed extremely poor-quality housing to be developed”,
with only 30% of homes built through permitted development meeting national space standards. As the right hon. Member for Harlow pointed out, in recent weeks Shelter and “Panorama” have exposed the impact of a kind of slum housing on vulnerable people who are placed in his constituency and elsewhere. The investigation revealed how different elements of the housing crisis are layered together to create a truly awful situation. Councils that already suffer the impact of record low investment in social housing under the present Government simply do not have the supply of genuinely affordable council housing. There are more than 1 million people on council waiting lists, and multiple failures in the private rented sector—whether it is the growing number of no-fault evictions, spiralling rents or poor quality accommodation —mean that more and more people are left with nowhere to go but temporary accommodation. Councils are left to try to find somewhere to house them.
Shelter’s investigation revealed that 90% of the £1.1 billion spent by councils on temporary accommodation went to private landlords and letting agents. The research revealed how investors were purchasing office blocks, which they would then convert to temporary accommodation without local authority planning permission, before charging them out back to councils at huge expense, despite the sub-par standards. In one case that was highlighted by Shelter, a temporary accommodation provider bought a permitted development block for £8 million and leased it to the council for £1 million a year for three years, before selling it to the same council for £13 million, making a 50% profit, plus millions in rent.
I will not talk in much detail about Croydon, because we are mostly discussing Essex, but it is the epicentre: it has more permitted development units than any other part of the country. I have dealt with many cases of substandard accommodation, including Delta Point, Canterbury House and Green Dragon House. Those have been converted, and there have been all kinds of issues. One instance speaks to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about the buildings being built for paper, not people: we had a block with a boiler system that was intended for people using the office space in the day. It was nowhere near good enough for the hundreds of people living in the block, so it failed and people went weeks without water and heating. We had to step in to try to solve that problem.
Those of us here today—we are quality, rather than quantity—are saying that the system is flawed. The Secretary of State has accepted that it is flawed. The Royal Institute of British Architects has called for an end to the scandal of families living in homes that are smaller than budget hotel rooms. I hope the Secretary of State is having some second thoughts. The consultation was originally introduced to look at expanding permitted development, but he has made remarks in the Chamber and elsewhere that suggest he understands that there are problems that need to be fixed. The nature of retail and office space is changing, and traditional high streets are changing, but converting everything into residential at great speed with no quality is not the way to help our high streets.
From our perspective, permitted development as it stands is better off scrapped, but if we are not going to go that far, I have some questions for the Minister. Does he accept that this is a significant problem, which is affecting a lot of people? If so, what does he propose to do about it? When can we expect the result of the consultation, and how does he see permitted development fitting into the solution to the huge problems of the housing crisis, examples of which we have heard about today from Harlow, Luton and Croydon?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Luke Hall)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for calling this debate. It is an issue that he is extremely passionate about; he has raised it in the House many times. He is a champion on this issue, regularly lobbying Ministers to ensure that he gets his point across. He has done so again, extremely powerfully, today. I thank him for his contribution.
The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) made a powerful speech. She has invited me to come to her constituency twice in the last week. I spent part of my youth growing up there, and it would be a pleasure to come back to speak to her and to see the issues at first hand.
I take on board some of the points raised by the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). The homelessness advice and support team have not heard some of the specific issues that she has raised about developments in her constituency, so I will ensure that that information is taken away, and that the team gets in touch with her local authority following the debate.
Nobody here today is in any doubt that the root of the issue is the need for new homes. We want housing for all those who aspire to have a home, whether a home of their own or a home to rent. A key part of achieving our ambition is to reduce homelessness, end rough sleeping and give people the homes that they need. Building the homes that this country needs, closing the opportunity gap and helping millions of young people into homes is something we want to focus on.
Together, we have delivered more than 1.5 million new homes since 2010. Of those, more than 465,000 are affordable homes, which includes 325,000 homes for affordable rent and 140,000 for social rent. We delivered 240,000 additional homes in the past year, which was the highest number in any year but one in more than 30 years. To build on that success, we have committed to deliver 300,000 new homes every year by the mid-2020s, which we will do by committing at least £44 billion of funding over five years.
We are reviewing the affordable homes programme, providing more than £9 billion up to March 2022, which will deliver a quarter of a million new affordable homes of a wide range of tenures, including shared ownership and social rent. The Government are also lifting the housing borrowing cap for councils, so that local authorities can deliver a new generation of council housing. In addition, to help people to buy homes where they already live, last week we launched a consultation on First Homes. These are discounted homes for local people and key workers, and the policy has the potential to save them tens of thousands of pounds and help them take their first steps on the property ladder.
To support the delivery of new housing, there is a duty on local planning authorities to have in place local plans, which need to allocate sufficient land in our towns and villages for new homes, and to have policies that encourage appropriate development. Some 302 local planning authorities have an adopted local plan— 89% of all local authorities—and 145 have plans adopted within the past five years. In the coming months, we shall set out an ambitious planning White Paper, which will continue the simplification of the planning system for the public and for small builders and make more land available for housing.
This debate links to the issue of homelessness, including in Harlow. Some important points have been made about homeless households and the impact that poor housing quality has on families, individuals and the community. We need to address that, whether in Harlow or any other town in our country. In 2020, it is unacceptable that anybody should have to sleep rough, especially at a time when we are enduring sub-zero temperatures. That is why we have brought forward our manifesto commitment to end rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament, rather than 2027. We want people to feel safe and secure in their own home.
On temporary accommodation, we always want to see homeless individuals and families moved into settled accommodation as soon as possible and on a permanent basis. The action that we are taking to increase the delivery of housing supports that. However, we do of course recognise the important role that temporary accommodation can play in the meantime, in ensuring that no family is without a roof over their head. We understand that there has been an increase in the number of households in TA in recent years. Although the overall numbers have been rising, the number of households with children has remained relatively stable since the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017—a groundbreaking piece of legislation. The increase in TA numbers since the Act took effect has been almost entirely driven by single households receiving help that was previously unavailable to them.
For the first time, the Act requires local authorities and public servants and the third sector to work together to actively prevent and relieve homelessness for people who are at risk, irrespective of whether they are a family or a single person. That means that more single people, who might otherwise have been on the streets, are getting the help that they need.
To help local authorities deliver their new duties under the HRA, we have created a specialist team of homelessness advice and support team advisers with expertise in the sector, to challenge and support local authorities in tackling the issue in their area. At the same time as supporting councils to deliver a transformation in their local homelessness services, the team has helped local authorities to deliver a 39% reduction in the number of families housed in B&B accommodation for longer than six weeks.
I absolutely acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow has raised particular developments in his constituency. However, we recognise the importance of providing self-contained homes for families in need, and permitted development rights can play a role in enabling that. It is easy to dismiss the value of a person having a house and home to call their own—I know my right hon. Friend is not doing so—and we think that permitted development rights play an important role in the system.
My right hon. Friend raised the issue of people being moved by councils from other local authority areas, in his case from London, and placed in his constituency. We are clear that, as far as possible, local authorities should avoid placing households outside their borough. However, in some areas where there is a limited supply of suitable accommodation, it has been necessary to place households outside their local area. It should always be a last resort—I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend on that point. Where it does happen, the council should place the household as near as possible to their home local authority. The local authority also has a legal duty to notify the receiving local authority of any households that are placed in its area.
It is important to stress that households have the right to appeal against the decision made by the local authority, if they feel that the TA that they have been placed in is not suitable. Collaboration between local authorities is paramount, which is why we welcome the initiative taken by the Local Government Association to bring together local authorities from London and around the country to try to address concerns about unsuitable out-of-area placements, including the use of blocks converted under permitted development rights. That will also help to deal with the concern that councils may be unaware of placements that are taking place in their area.
We completely recognise the particular challenges that London boroughs face in securing suitable temporary accommodation. To tackle those challenges, we have invested £37.8 million into a partnership of local authorities across London, which has set up Capital Letters, a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee that enables councils to pool their procurement activity in order to access an improved supply of good-quality accommodation to prevent and relieve homelessness. Capital Letters will reduce the use of expensive nightly paid temporary accommodation and ensure that properties are allocated more locally than they currently are.
Robert Halfon
I realise that the Minister has stepped in because the previous Housing Minister, to whom I pay tribute for her championing of blue-collar Conservatism, has sadly left her post. However, I say to the Minister that this is not a last resort for the councils around London that are dumping their people in my constituency. It is a first resort; it is the easy option. It means they do not have to pay for those people, and there are no strictures that say they must notify Harlow Council. The Minister may not be able to answer this question today, but I want to know what specifically is going to be done in my constituency to stop these things happening, and to ensure that permitted development rights are only allowed for five-star-quality accommodation, not for the kinds of things that I have described in my speech, and which the hon. Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) have reported to be happening in their constituencies.
Luke Hall
My right hon. Friend is completely right to raise the challenges that his local authority faces, and I know that the Secretary of State has visited that local authority to discuss the significant impact that it has been dealing with. The best thing may be for the new Housing Minister, upon appointment, to write to my right hon. Friend to update him about the Government’s plans and the work we are doing. If he wants to meet me to discuss this issue further, I am happy to meet him, but I am sure that the new Housing Minister will be able to give him some satisfaction.
National permitted development rights for the change of use to residential continue to play an important part in the planning system and make an important contribution to housing delivery. Those rights are delivering additional, much-needed homes that may not have been delivered otherwise, and have attracted new developers into the market. As has been mentioned, in the four years to March 2019, some 54,000 homes to buy or rent have been delivered through those rights, which allow a change of use from office to residential. We are clear that permitted development rights are a worthwhile way of making better use of existing buildings and preventing them from lying dormant and unused, which helps reduce the need to build on greenfield sites. Those rights also provide flexibility for property owners and offer a simplified approach to securing planning agreements. Where there are local issues that residents feel strongly about, planning authorities can of course consult with the community about whether to remove a permitted development right.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow mentioned good-quality homes being created through permitted development rights in his constituency, and I am glad that he did so. We do not want local authorities to be in a hurry to remove rights; they should take the time to ensure that they are getting those decisions right. Harlow has already removed the permitted development right for the change of use from office to residential in parts of that borough, and rights have been removed from buildings in the area around the developments described by my right hon. Friend. The Government expect that all homes should be of good quality, including those used for TA, and should meet building regulations —of course, the majority of developers ensure that they do so.
Robert Halfon
I realise that my hon. Friend stepped in at the last minute, and I do not want to make things difficult, given that he did not know that he would be responding to today’s debate. However, in my view, these places need to be closed down immediately, and as I highlighted in my remarks, there are some powers to do so. Could not the Government work with the local council to bring in special powers to close down these unsuitable buildings, which are causing misery for the people in them and the people of Harlow? We need action on this issue. I realise that my hon. Friend may not be able to properly answer me today, but could someone—whether he or the Housing Minister— contact me to say whether it would be possible to take emergency action?
Luke Hall
I am absolutely happy to ensure that that is one of the issues that the new Minister contacts my right hon. Friend about. Of course we recognise the issues that have been highlighted, which is why, last year, we announced that we would undertake a review of the quality standards of homes delivered through permitted development rights. Further announcements on that will be made in due course, and I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend is alerted and aware as soon as we are able to provide him with some certainty. However, I will be explicit about Government policy: an ongoing supply of new homes delivered through permitted development is important if we are to hit our ambitious housing targets while driving down rents and offering affordable homes to help people on to the property ladder.
These debates are vital. Some concerning cases have been raised by my right hon. Friend, which is why the Government are taking the action that we are. He has been a passionate advocate for change in this area; his points have been made loud and clear, and I will ensure that the Secretary of State is aware of the issues he has raised. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this afternoon’s important debate, including my right hon. Friend, and look forward to visiting the constituency of the hon. Member for Luton South.
Robert Halfon
I thank the Labour Members present, the hon. Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). There is a lot of unity on this issue across all parties in the House, and the Minister has done a very good job of standing in at the last minute to respond to this debate. However, I urge him to make sure that the Department does everything possible to deal with this problem, because it is ruining towns and places for the people and families who live in them, including the people of Harlow.
The crucial point is about planning and the quality of housing that is allowed to be built, because these landlords would not be able to do what they are doing if there were strict rules about the size of the housing. Permitted development rights were not meant to be about temporary accommodation; they were meant to be about affordable housing, which is why I supported them. Although there was no vote in the House of Commons at the time—those rights were backed by all parties—I never would have supported them if I had known then what has happened over the past few years. We need the review of quality standards to have real teeth and substance, so that this situation is changed forthwith, and the existing buildings in Harlow need to be closed down, because they should not be allowed in this day and age. The Government, working with local councils, should take action to close those buildings down and make sure the residents in them have other accommodation to go to. We need to stop this once and for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered permitted development rights for office block conversions in Essex.
Written Statements
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Maternity Services: East Kent
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I made a statement on 28 January about concerns regarding maternity services in East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust. I explained that I had sought reports from both the health service investigation branch and the Care Quality Commission and asked them to report back in 14 days. I have now received those reports and an update from NHS Improvement and NHS England and would like to make a statement.
The most important thing when having a baby is that you expect to receive the safest possible care. When things go wrong that lead to harm, it is devastating for all concerned. Therefore, I would like to express my deepest and heartfelt sympathies for the patients and families of those affected.
System response
The key partners within the health system continue to work with the trust to identify the problems in maternity services and to ensure that swift remedial and appropriate action is taken. We all want and need to know that the care delivered is of the highest standard we would wish for ourselves and for our families.
Diagnosis (HSIB and CQC)
The healthcare safety investigation branch has conducted a number of maternity investigations at the trust as part of its national maternity investigation programme. It has started 25 maternity investigations at the trust since July 2018, of which 16 have been completed. These have identified a number of safety concerns, including the availability of skilled staff, particularly out of hours, access to neonatal resuscitation equipment, the speed with which patient concerns are escalated up to senior clinicians and obstetricians, along with failings in leadership and governance.
As requested, the Care Quality Commission carried out an unannounced inspection of East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust’s maternity service between 22 January 2020 and 5 February 2020. The Care Quality Commission inspected the maternity provision at William Harvey Hospital, Ashford and the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Hospital, Margate. These two sites provide the acute inpatient care and the vast majority of the trust’s maternity service.
The Care Quality Commission has written to the trust with an overview of its findings and the full inspection report will be published in due course. The CQC received additional information from the trust on Tuesday, following its request for further assurance on triage and day care and medical staffing. The CQC is considering this information and is in regular contact with the trust leadership to gain assurance of the required actions. The Care Quality Commission will continue to engage with the trust on all these issues and consider whether any further action is necessary.
It is important that everyone is aware that, the CQC is in regular contact with the trust and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.
Robust actions in hand
From the findings provided to me it is clear that the challenges at East Kent point to a range of issues including having the right staff with the right skills in the right place, effective multidisciplinary working, clear collaborative working between midwives and doctors, good communication and effective leadership support. But it would be wrong to speculate that there is one single cause.
NHS England and Improvement are working very closely with the trust, and they have taken some immediate actions.
First, the regional medical director and regional chief nurse are providing support to the trust. The medical director will address concerns surrounding appropriate senior medical oversight.
Secondly, the regional chief nurse is providing support to the director of nursing and head of midwifery to prioritise and focus their local maternity improvement plans to address identified safety concerns. They will also review the effectiveness of clinical governance and executive leadership support, and this will include ensuring the trust is taking the learning from all historical cases and disseminating that learning throughout the trust.
England’s excellent chief midwifery officer, Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, has sent an independent clinical support team into the trust to provide assurance that all measures possible are being taken. This expert team includes a director of midwifery services from a CQC-rated outstanding trust, two consultant obstetricians and consultant paediatrician and neonatologist. She has placed the very best at the heart of the trust, on the wards, at the bedside of patients with fresh eyes to oversee the care delivered.
The independent team is working with trust staff to deliver immediate improvements to care and to put in place robust and comprehensive processes to support improvement in standards over the long term. This input will also support East Kent to meet the 10 essential safety actions set by NHS Resolution’s maternity incentive scheme.
Along with the 14 day reports, I can offer further reassurance that Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent personally visited the trust two weeks ago to assess changes being put in place and that improvements are moving at pace.
Jenny Hughes, chief midwife for the south-east region, is also working with the trust directly.
NHS England and NHS Improvement regional and national teams will continue to work with the trust, with families where appropriate and with the intensive support team.
The trust’s board is taking the issues seriously and is working closely with NHS England and Improvement. The trust has already implemented a number of actions to improve safety. It has created and filled several specialist midwife posts. Safety huddles, where safety issues are regularly and frequently discussed, have been embedded on both sites to anticipate problems before they occur, and multi-disciplinary teams work collaboratively and effectively within these huddles. A protocol to ensure that CTGs—records of contractions and foetal heart rate—are subject to a “fresh eyes” check by another member of staff is working well.
The trust has also developed its approach to working with families in the sad case of a death, to ensure that it always provides a point of contact and that it includes and involves families in its investigations of these incidents, from the moment a serious incident occurs.
Sympathies and assurance
A dedicated quality surveillance meeting with the trust, Care Quality Commission and key health system partners is scheduled for 21 February 2020 to consider the trust’s actions to date and any further interventions required. I have asked for regular frequent updates plus a further update after this meeting.
We will never be complacent, and I can confirm to the House that I have had assurance from the Care Quality Commission that they are content that the trust is taking the issues identified seriously and has a genuine desire to make the necessary improvements. The Care Quality Commission also notes that the trust has a number of mitigations in place, including accepting NHS Improvement’s offer of maternity safety support, and the Care Quality Commission will be closely monitoring how the trust responds to the issues that it needs to address and I expect to be regularly updated.
It is critical that we continue to strive to make maternity care the safest it can be and to ensure that we build a learning culture in the NHS as set out in the NHS patient safety strategy. This requires leadership at all levels. This is why I have sought and had assurance from each part of the health and care system that they will continue to work with clinical and executive teams at East Kent Hospitals to make improvements to maternity and neonatal services across all sites operated by the trust.
Once more, I would like to express my deepest sympathies for the patients and families of those affected.
[HCWS114]
75th Anniversary of Victory in Europe Day: Licensing Hours
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and the Fire Service (Kit Malthouse)
Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a licensing hours order (“order”) relaxing opening hours for licensed premises (any premises with a premises licence or a club premises certificate) in England and Wales to mark an occasion of “exceptional international, national or local significance”.
The Government have consulted on a proposal to make such an order to relax licensing hours in England and Wales to mark the 75th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day. The order, which was laid before the House yesterday, will extend licensed opening hours from 11pm on Friday 8 May 2020 to 1am the following morning on Saturday 9 May 2020, and from 11pm on Saturday 9 May 2020 to 1am the following morning on Sunday 10 May 2020, for premises licensed for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises and for premises licensed for the provision of regulated entertainment.
An impact assessment has been prepared and will be published alongside the order on legislation.gov.uk.
[HCWS115]
Automatic Enrolment Thresholds
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
Automatic enrolment into workplace pensions (AE) has been a great success to date with over 10 million people having been automatically enrolled and more than 1.6 million employers meeting their duties. Over 2019-20, working people will save an estimated extra £18.8 billion into workplace pensions as a result of these reforms.
The main focus of this year’s annual review of the AE earnings trigger and qualifying earnings band (the AE thresholds) is to ensure the continued stability of the policy while learning from the April 2019 AE contribution rate increase. We also want to ensure that our approach continues to enable individuals, for whom it makes economic sense, to save towards their pensions while also ensuring affordability for employers and the Government. The review has concluded that the earnings trigger will remain at £10,000 and both the lower and upper earnings limits will continue to be aligned to the national insurance contribution thresholds.
I intend to lay an order before Parliament following the February recess which will serve to amend the Pensions Act 2008 so that, for 2020-21:
the lower limit of the qualifying earnings band will be £6,240;
the automatic enrolment earnings trigger will be maintained at £10,000;
the upper limit of the qualifying earnings band will remain at £50,000.
The analysis supporting the proposed revised AE thresholds will be published in due course. A copy of this will be placed in the Library of the House and will be available on the www.gov.uk website, following publication.
[HCWS116]
House of Lords
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Islamophobia
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sheikh
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards the adoption of a formal definition of Islamophobia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, the Government remain committed to stamping out anti-Muslim hatred and all forms of hate crime. It is unacceptable for anyone to feel unsafe while practising their religion. We continue to take a zero-tolerance approach to Islamophobia. The definition proposed by the APPG is not in line with the Equality Act 2010 and could have consequences for freedom of speech. We recognise the importance of this matter and will interrogate it in further detail.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Islamophobia is of great concern to the Muslim community. I have raised this subject before in your Lordships’ House. Can the Minister assure the House that the process to be undertaken will not involve any preconditions such as recognising Islamophobia as a form of racism? Does he agree that any definition proposed by the Government must have the support of the Muslim community and Muslim representative groups, without which it will have little value? If so, can he confirm that this will be done?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I agree with my noble friend that Islamophobia, while a hate a crime, is not a form of racism as defined by the Equality Act 2010. Section 9 of the Act defines race as comprising “colour, nationality” and “ethnic or national origins”, none of which would encompass a Muslim or an Islamic practice, so conflating race and religion in conflict with any definition could cause confusion.
On the second question, it is important for the Government to listen to and engage with Muslim groups and communities, which we will continue to do.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, emotive definitions such as Islamophobia are simply constraints on freedom of speech. A phobia is a fear, and the best way to combat irrational fear or prejudice suffered by all religions and beliefs is through healthy, open discussion. Will the Minister endorse the commitment given last week by Heather Wheeler, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to protect all religions and beliefs without fear or favour?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord is right. As I said, it is unacceptable for anyone to feel unsafe while practising their religion and the Government will never allow prejudice and discrimination of any kind against the Muslim or any other community. We take a zero-tolerance approach and recognise the importance of this matter.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, the definition of Islamophobia proposed by the APPG, like the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, is not a legally binding working definition, so there is no conflict with the Equality Act. My noble friend will recognise that the Government and the Conservative Party rightly criticised the party opposite when it felt that it could make the definition better and amend it, despite the Jewish community saying, “This is our definition”; that party was wrong for doing so. Does he further recognise the irony and hypocrisy of the Government’s position on Islamophobia, as opposed to the position that we took on anti-Semitism?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
There are a couple of points there. The IHRA definition is widely accepted internationally and, by adopting this non-binding definition, we underline the UK Government’s determination to tackle anti-Semitism wherever it occurs. On my noble friend’s other point, as she will know, Islamophobia is a complex matter and there are different views in this House on the issue. There has been strong opposition to the adoption of the all-party definition from a wide range of organisations, including Civitas, Policy Exchange, the Barnabas Fund and the Henry Jackson Society. It is an ongoing issue and discussions are continuing.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, there are some appalling examples of the Muslim community being harassed and suffering racial abuse. Why will the Government not adopt this definition when it has been adopted by hundreds of organisations, including many local authorities and police forces and, I think I am right in saying—perhaps the Minister can confirm it—by the Conservative Party in Scotland? We need to hear much more from the noble Lord and his party about how they will deal with this appalling abuse.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord has picked up on what I just said: it is a challenging issue. I can reassure him that we intend to move as quickly as possible to come to a definition. As I said, it is important to discuss this fully and make sure that we get it right.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, we on these Benches deplore all attacks on any religious groups and we note particularly the huge rise in the deeply concerning issue of attacks on Muslims. The Minister will be aware of the media reports on Imam Asim of Makkah mosque in Leeds and his comments on free speech. Does the Minister agree with me and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury that Muslims and all religious groups deserve better media? Does he further agree that, alongside law, we need to seriously address this through education?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The right reverend Prelate is right. I had brief sight of the abhorrent hate crime addressed to Qari Asim and I condemn it utterly. He is also right that we need to work harder on the schools and education policy to be sure that young people are not ingrained in any of this despicable stuff.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, at a time when anti-Muslim and Islamophobic hate crime has spiked by over 500%, and given that the APPG definition was arrived at after widespread consultation with hundreds of academic organisations and now has the support of most mainstream political parties, chief police officers, councils, trade unions and the Scottish Conservatives, why have the Government decided to appoint two advisers to come up with a different definition? Can the Minister not see that doing that, and delaying coming to a non-binding position on this, leads to the community losing confidence in the Government even further because they appear to be kicking something as important as this into the long grass and not taking it seriously?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Not at all—we take it very seriously. The question asked by the noble Baroness is very similar to that from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I say again that the definition goes against not only the Equality Act 2010 but international human rights law, which treats race and religion separately. Criticising somebody because of their race is regarded in international law as unacceptable, but criticising religions or beliefs is permitted. This remains a challenging issue, and we want to move quickly to resolve it.
Industrial and Mining Towns
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to enhance the economies of former industrial and mining towns and villages in the North of England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, this Government are committed to levelling up regions and supporting communities in former industrial and mining towns in the north of England through the continuation of our numerous devolution policies. Alongside the refreshed northern powerhouse strategy and building on considerable investment through the local growth fund, the Government are providing funding to towns through the £3.6 billion towns fund and the future high streets fund. The north will also benefit from an array of national funding pots.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, the old industrial towns and villages are suddenly in the news following the general election. We are not the major regional centres, such as Newcastle, Leeds and Manchester, but across the north of England and the Midlands there are hundreds of such places. They are the towns around, the areas on the edge, the places in between. We need the resources, powers and, often, new infrastructure to tackle problems such as transport and flooding, but our futures cannot be successfully micromanaged from Whitehall or even from the large cities. Do the Government understand that the local successful futures of these areas must be firmly in the hands of local councils, local people, local organisations and local businesses? The local communities themselves, with local democratic control, will let a thousand democratic local flowers bloom.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I agree with much of what the noble Lord said. I am very pleased that we have commenced a grand tour of the north. On Monday we focused on Yorkshire, and here we are on Thursday focusing on Lancashire. The noble Lord has spoken about local communities, and that is exactly what we are aiming to do. We are committed to levelling up the economy across the UK, with a focus on the north. We have made huge strides in rebalancing the economy. Over the past few years, the Government have delivered on one of the most ambitious devolution agendas in more than 70 years. The noble Lord might also like to know that the details locally are coming through. He will know about the redevelopment of the Brierfield Mill, which will see the mill changed into a mixed-use leisure, learning and community destination, to be known as Northlight.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, on effective communities, will the Government restore a significant proportion of the moneys withdrawn from the support of local government in the past few years, which in Newcastle’s case alone amounts to £330 million a year? I declare my interest as a member of Newcastle City Council.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord is right, and that is exactly what we are doing. We have announced the £3.6 billion towns fund, which will support an initial 100 town deals across England. We also have the future high streets fund, for which £1 billion of the towns fund has been made available. We are looking north and directing funding into the areas where it matters, directed by the wishes of local people.
Lord Vinson (Con)
My Lords, 90% of the economy goes by road. The A1, the main road from London to Edinburgh, is not even dualled. The A69 over the Pennines is a constant brake on the movement of transport. If we want to get the north of England moving, we must improve the road system as well as the rail system.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My noble friend is right. Again, there are several announcements coming out on transport. There was the announcement on HS2 this week, and we now have a new national bus strategy. On his point about roads, I remember answering a Question on the A1. It is very much on the radar, and I will write to my noble friend with the details of the A1 and the new road that is going to be built towards Carlisle.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, former mining towns that voted more for Brexit than anywhere else in the country do not want investment that goes round them; they want investment in them—that people can see inside them. Do the Government realise that their credibility in the next five years will be judged on this more than on any other issue?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord makes a good point to the extent that we are focusing in. It takes us back to the Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on coalfields, regeneration and steelworks. The Government have provided funding to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust—the CRT—which seeks to support former mining communities in England; in the last seven years, we have provided £22 million. On the steelworks, he will know that much funding has gone into the Redcar steelworks, to the tune of £46 million.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, Governments cannot do everything, but if the Government are to re-engineer their criteria for investing in infrastructure to support the older industrial areas, might they encourage the private sector to do the same? The private sector has social obligations to places, as well as financial obligations to shareholders.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Absolutely—that will definitely be looked at. I make the point that, as the noble Lord will know, we are publishing a White Paper and setting out our strategy to unleash the potential of our regions. This will look at further devolution across England and levelling up powers, and will also include liaising and engaging with local businesses and getting their buy-in to what we plan to do.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, are the Government aware that SMEs in the north of England are already doing better than those in the south? Exports are up something like 50% on average over the last two years; a whole lot of incredibly good statistics have been confirmed by the Office for National Statistics. So we are on the right track already.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Yes, and, indeed, many SMEs have started up after the changes in some of the big industrial companies. The LEPs have also played their part; that informs investment decisions and drives economic growth. As I say, the White Paper will explore how we can align future local growth with further devolution and the institutional reforms entailed.
Bereavement Services
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have made of the services offered by public and private sector organisations to bereaved people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I know that this issue is very close to the noble Baroness’s heart, and I am pleased to have been able to meet with her to discuss it. It is absolutely right that we provide people with easily accessible support to help them through the difficult period following bereavement. The Tell Us Once service was introduced to develop effective partnerships and deliver linked services across local and central government. Noble Lords will be pleased and interested to hear that a survey showed that 98% of people who used the service were willing to recommend it to others, and that 98%, again, had an overall good experience.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply and for kindly meeting me beforehand, but I do press for real action. People who have lost loved ones—who are emotionally low and needing good, compassionate support—are too often faced with inefficient and slow services, increasing their stress at a time when many are prone to depression, as the charity Sue Ryder reports. The charities Cruse and Macmillan include in their reproaches financial firms with their disparate documentary demands, utilities firms and, I am afraid, the DWP. HMRC makes you fill out an inheritance tax form even when there is no such tax to pay. Should there not be one department or Minister to take responsibility, get a grip on all this, work with the campaigners I have cited, insist on slimming down and streamlining “bereavement bureaucracy” and deliver a much better deal for grieving people?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I fully appreciate the impact of a bereavement on individuals; I am sure that all noble Lords have had that at some point in their lives. We have talked about the Tell Us Once service. The noble Baroness—I am saying this respectfully—in true spirit raises a challenge. It is not one that we should dismiss, although people are saying that it cannot be done. I talked to Cruse yesterday after our meeting. It has a campaign called Bereaved Customers First, and it is trying to get banks, building societies, utility companies and other organisations to collaborate and to have what my pension friends would call a dashboard. I would like to speak to Cruse further. I urge the noble Baroness to carry on with this thinking. If it would help, I would be very happy to meet with her to take that forward.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, in the Pensions Act 2014 the Government rather controversially reformed bereavement payments to families who had lost a parent. However, last Friday they lost a case in the High Court in which the court ruled against them, saying that the policy was in conflict with the Human Rights Act because it did not extend bereavement support payments to fathers who had been living with the mother of their children for many years but were not married. I am interested in what the Government are going to do about this. They lost an equivalent case on the old system, Widowed Parent’s Allowance, 18 months ago and we have been waiting for a response to that court case ever since. Yesterday at PMQs, the Prime Minister had this case raised with him. He described the latest case as an injustice and said that
“we will do all we can to remedy it.”—[Official Report, Commons, 12/02/20; col. 852.]
When are we going to get a review both of the new bereavement support arrangements and, crucially, of the position of cohabiting couples?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I am not one to contradict the Prime Minister, and I am not going to try to do that. [Laughter.] I was really trying hard not to make fun of today, given the subject matter, but noble Lords are spot on. We have the judgment on the Jackson case, and officials are considering it. The Prime Minister has said more than I have been allowed to, so let us just let what he has said stand. The McLaughlin case that the noble Baroness has referred to is a bit more complicated—this is not an excuse—and our officials are working with Northern Ireland officials to see what can be done.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, the number of pauper public health funerals has risen by 70% since 2015. Churches perform half of all funerals in the United Kingdom and offer ongoing bereavement support to all. Recognising that other faiths also offer bereavement support, will the Government commit to encouraging local public health departments to work with faith communities to improve bereavement support and ensure that every person receives adequate funeral provision that includes care for the bereaved, who are often excluded?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
We must pay tribute to the Church of England and faith organisations, which come into their own in these very difficult times and provide invaluable support. I will take the right reverend Prelate’s request to officials and write to him with a response.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister use her good offices to ensure that the public are more aware of the bereavement support payment, which I do not think is widely understood at present?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
Again, it is important that people understand the support that is available to them. I will go back to the policy officials and see if we cannot do something a little more robust to up the ante on the campaign.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on doing exactly what a Lords Minister should: listening to what Members of this House say and then taking it back to her department and asking it to consider that. Could she give some advice to those sitting around her?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I learned everything that I do at this Dispatch Box from these colleagues.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the charity Cruse Bereavement Care. Is she aware that in October 2019, Cruse commissioned research from YouGov about people’s experiences on being bereaved? Some 44% described their experiences as time-consuming, 39% stressful, 30% upsetting, 24% complicated and 16% traumatic. In the light of this and the experience of my noble friend Lady Ludford, will the Minister commit to taking a lead on addressing the needs of bereaved people? Will she provide some form of practical support for Cruse, a charity with very limited resources, in its campaign to treat bereaved customers first?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I thank the noble Baroness for reminding us of those statistics, which should give us cause for concern. I have already pledged to go with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, to talk to Cruse; we will take up the points that the noble Baroness raised.
Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the sinking of a boat carrying Rohingya refugees in the Bay of Bengal, what steps they are taking to assist Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, I was deeply saddened by the tragic loss of life following the recent capsizing of a boat in the Bay of Bengal. We are monitoring the situation closely. The UK is a leading donor to the Rohingya crisis response in both Bangladesh and Myanmar. In Bangladesh, our assistance includes the provision of food, healthcare, shelter, counselling and care for sexual violence survivors, and protection for vulnerable groups, including women and children. Our support has reached more than 1 million refugees and host community members.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that response. I certainly agree that DfID’s commitment to the Rohingya in Bangladesh has been tremendous. On Tuesday, along with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, I met postgraduate students from Oxford who did a study on hepatitis C in Cox’s Bazar. The conditions they portrayed were stunning. How much of the Government’s £87 million funding package will be directed toward reproductive and sexual health services, as well as targeting high rates of hepatitis C among the refugees? Will the Government also commit to a whole-society approach to longer-term investment for not only refugees but the host community?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, the long-term plan must be that the Rohingya are able to return home, but those returns must be voluntary, safe and dignified. In line with the UN, we do not believe that the conditions are currently in place, not least because of the recent terrible fighting in Rakhine state. The noble Lord highlights the case of hep C; I look forward to reading the report that he referred to. We are supporting healthcare in the camps. More than 500,000 medical consultations have been provided for refugees and host community members, including on reproductive health for women and girls, but as the crisis becomes more protracted, we need to ensure that we remain one of the leading donors and work with the Government of Bangladesh to come up with longer-term planning for the whole of the Cox’s Bazar district. The local communities have been very generous in hosting so many refugees; we must ensure that our help goes to those communities too.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Does my noble friend appreciate that this tragedy—and, indeed, this Question—reminds us of the enormous burden falling on the nation of Bangladesh? Does she appreciate that it is now one of the most dynamic, fastest-growing and highest-technology economies in the world, rising from a very low base? Will she urge her colleagues to undertake to raise to a much higher level our co-operation with and support—of all kinds—for the nation of Bangladesh in its challenges and its efforts to advance?
Baroness Sugg
I agree completely with my noble friend on the importance of ensuring a strong relationship between the UK and Bangladesh. Extreme poverty has declined there from nearly 35% to less than 15%, and Bangladesh is graduating from least-developed country status. However, it is one of the most climate-vulnerable and densely populated countries in the world. We are the second-biggest donor to the Rohingya crisis. We are ensuring that we provide support and expertise to tackle poverty and climate shocks across the country.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, with an unprecedented and staggering 70 million people displaced or refugees globally, driven out by conflict or persecution—1 million of whom are Rohingya fleeing ethnic cleansing—this requires a systematic and long-term global campaign to hold those responsible to account? Following the International Court of Justice’s recent preliminary ruling requiring Burma to protect Rohingya, what have we said to Burma’s Government about implementing the steps required of them, ending impunity for crimes against humanity and reinstating the Rohingya’s rights of citizenship?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we welcome the International Court of Justice’s consideration of whether Myanmar has breached the genocide convention. We have consistently expressed our profound concern at the terrible events in Rakhine state. We welcome the ICJ’s decision on provisional measures. The court was clear that Myanmar must do more to protect the Rohingya. We have urged Myanmar to comply with the measures in full and are exploring with partners how best to ensure that it implements the decision of the ICJ, including through our place at the UN Security Council.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, my question is also about the case that the Gambia brought to the ICJ in The Hague and follows on neatly from that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. It is to do with the response of the de facto ruler of Myanmar, the quite extraordinary insistence by Aung San Suu Kyi that efforts to bring stability and progress to Rakhine state have been hampered by international condemnation. Does the Minister agree with that statement and, if not, have we responded to her assertion in the strongest possible terms?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, the UN fact-finding mission has concluded that ethnic cleansing has occurred against ethnic minorities, including the Rohingya in Rakhine state. I indeed saw Aung San Suu Kyi’s evidence. We want a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Myanmar with the military under full civilian control. We will work with the civilian Government to help achieve this but, of course, we must continue to work with our international allies to see the Government of Myanmar deliver it.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that Bangladesh is to be not only commended but continuously supported for its sterling efforts to manage this global humanitarian crisis? The Minister may be aware that a large delegation of parliamentarians from both Houses recently went to the refugee camps to see the work going on, particularly the impact of the work of DfID, the International Rescue Committee and others on women and children. Will she meet some of us so that we might update her on the current situation, which is dire? Perhaps other Members of the House would be interested in attending with her and her officials.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I also visited the camps in October last year—I think it was just after the parliamentary delegation. The conditions there are indeed terrible. We have seen some welcome improvements. We have invested heavily in the camps. The Bangladesh Government have recently accepted that the Myanmar curriculum can be studied, which is a significant step forward. We are investing in shelter there as well as in women-friendly space. I would be delighted to meet the noble Baroness and others who have visited to understand what they have seen.
Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill
Thursday 13th February 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 99(a) Amendments for Committee - (13 Feb 2020)
Business of the House
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That, in the event of the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill being brought from the House of Commons, Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday 24 February to allow that Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, in moving the Business of the House Motion on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I want to make a short business statement. As announced in yesterday’s Forthcoming Business, this House will have its chance to debate and scrutinise the emergency Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill on Monday 24 February. We will take all the Bill’s stages that day. As always, and while we may not always agree on everything, I am grateful to my colleagues in the usual channels for their co-operation in scheduling this important Bill. The Bill was debated in the House of Commons yesterday for five hours and passed unamended. On the practical arrangements, a speakers’ list is already open for Second Reading and will close at 4 pm on Friday 21 February. If the House agrees to the Business of the House Motion, the Legislation Office is open and ready to receive amendments for Committee now that the Bill has been read a first time, and it will produce a Marshalled List on Friday 21 February after 4 pm. This will allow early discussions regarding the grouping of any amendments tabled by that point. On Monday 24 February, if necessary, a revised Marshalled List will be produced after 5 pm. Members will be able to table manuscript amendments until 30 minutes after the end of Second Reading. Further timings will be confirmed on the day. I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the House deserves a greater explanation. I am not against what is proposed, but the Chief Whip has not explained why the Bill has to get through in a day. I think there are important reasons, which as it happens I support, but it ought to be explained to the House and the public why we are taking this exceptional action—not just the technicalities of it but the principle behind it.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am happy to do that. The critical date is Friday 28 February, when a particular prisoner may come up for release. That means that the Parole Board has to do its business with its new-found powers, if passed by this House, on the Thursday. That means that Royal Assent has to be on the Wednesday, which means that, if there were any amendment on the Monday, there would be ping-pong on the Tuesday. That is why the timetable is so critical.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
Given that Monday 24 February is the first day back after a recess, has it been contemplated in the usual channels that it might be necessary to sit early that day? If so, when is that decision likely to be taken?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
It was not felt necessary, although there was the possibility of doing that; I accept that point. The usual channels did not feel that it was necessary at that time. Of course, it makes it particularly difficult on the first day back from recess, when Members of this House have to travel, some of them many miles—including by rail and air travel—to get here.
Business of the House
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Wednesday 26 February to allow the NHS Funding Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I think the House deserves an explanation on this occasion as well. We put through too many things on the nod in this House—recommendations from committees and so on—and only afterwards do we realise the implications of it. Increasingly, the Government should explain exactly why Motions are being considered by this House, without them being put through on the nod. I hope that the Chief Whip can give us the courtesy of explaining why.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, the usual channels have of course had this explained to them, but I accept that I have not explained it to the noble Lord. The NHS Funding Bill has been certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons as a money Bill, and that is conclusive for all purposes. In the case of money Bills, it is the normal practice of this House to take all stages after Second Reading formally.
Business of the House
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the debate on the motion in the name of Lord Hope of Craighead set down for today shall be limited to three and a half hours and that in the name of Lord Russell of Liverpool to one and a half hours.
Consolidation etc. Bills Committee
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Health: Maternity Care Provisions in East Kent
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, with permission, I will now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given to an Urgent Question by my honourable friend the Minister for Mental Health earlier today. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I will be setting out the situation concerning East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust in line with the Written Ministerial Statement that was laid in Parliament this morning. The fact that I took steps to inform Parliament of this matter reflects the importance I have placed on this issue.
Before I begin, I would like to express my deepest and most heartfelt sympathies for the patients and families who have been affected. I made a Statement on 28 January about concerns regarding maternity services in East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust. I would now like to update the House based on the reports from the independent Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, which I refer to as HSIB from now on, and the Care Quality Commission. I requested that both HSIB and the CQC report back to me within 14 days when I instructed them to go into East Kent Trust two weeks ago and they reported to me on Monday.
HSIB has already conducted a number of investigations at the trust as part of its national maternity investigation programme. These identified a number of safety concerns, including the availability of skilled staff, particularly out of hours; access to neonatal resuscitation equipment; the speed with which patient concerns are escalated up to senior clinicians and obstetricians; along with failings in leadership and governance. As requested, the CQC carried out an unannounced inspection of the trust’s maternity service between 22 January and 5 February 2020. It has written to the trust with an overview of its findings and a full inspection report will be published in due course. The CQC received additional information from the trust this week, following its request for further assurance on triage, day care and medical staffing, and is considering this information. It is important that everyone is aware that the CQC is in regular contact with the trust and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.
From the findings provided to me by HSIB and the CQC it is clear that the challenges at East Kent point to a range of issues—including having the right staff with the right skills in the right place; effective multidisciplinary working; clear collaborative working between midwives and doctors; good communication; and effective leadership support—but it would be wrong to speculate that there is one single cause. NHS England and NHS Improvement are working very closely with the trust and have taken some immediate actions.
First, the regional medical director and regional chief nurse are providing support to the trust. The medical director will address concerns surrounding appropriate senior medical oversight. Secondly, the regional chief nurse is providing support to the director of nursing and the head of midwifery to prioritise and focus their local maternity improvement plans to address identified safety concerns. They will also review the effectiveness of clinical governance and executive leadership support, and this will include ensuring that the trust is taking the learning from all historical cases and disseminating that learning through the trust.
The chief midwifery officer, Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, has sent an independent clinical support team to the trust to provide assurance that all measures possible are being taken. This expert team includes a director of midwifery services from an outstanding trust, two consultant obstetricians, a consultant paediatrician and a neonatologist. She has placed the very best at the heart of the trust—on the wards, at the bedside of patients—with fresh eyes to oversee the care presently being delivered. The independent team is working with trust staff to deliver immediate improvements to care and to put in place robust and comprehensive processes to support improvement in standards over the long term. I can offer reassurance that Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent personally visited the trust two weeks ago to assess changes being put in place and that improvements are moving at pace.
Jenny Hughes, chief midwife for the south-east region, is also working with the trust directly. NHS England and NHS Improvement regional and national teams will continue to work with the trust. The trust is taking the issues seriously, is working closely with NHS England and NHS Improvement, and has created and filled several specialist midwife posts. Safety huddles, where safety issues are regularly and frequently discussed, have been embedded on both sites to anticipate problems before they occur, and multidisciplinary teams are working collaboratively.
I would like to reiterate my condolences, particularly to Harry Richford’s family and all those affected. I also thank the honourable Member for North Thanet for raising this important issue. The Government are fully committed to reducing patient harm and improving the safety of maternity services.”
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that detailed Statement, which this issue definitely warrants. Given the measures that have been taken by NHS England and all the parties concerned, why has this trust not yet been put into special measures and at what point will it be? I agree with the Minister about the issue of leadership and culture in this hospital trust. I was horrified, as I am sure other noble Lords would have been, by the chief executive of this trust saying on the BBC that there had been “only” six or seven avoidable deaths since 2011. Actually, that is not true, and I think she said it because she had not read the report produced in 2015. What worries me is that there has clearly been a serious failure of leadership and culture across the whole of this trust, and that statement from the chief executive seems to symbolise that failure. How will the measures that the Government and NHS England are taking address the very serious leadership issues in this trust?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
As I said, there has been an unannounced CQC inspection; there is also further engagement with the CQC and we await the findings of its report, which will come forward in due course. In addition, specialist teams have been sent in to ensure that there is robust leadership so that ongoing care is assured and patients can be reassured on that point. NHS England has announced that it will commission an independent review into East Kent so that there is a belt-and-braces approach to ensure the highest possible standards of care there. We can be reassured that the issues raised by the noble Baroness will be addressed and that no stone will be left unturned.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I also thank the Minister for the detailed Statement, which is much appreciated, and echo the sentiments of sympathy and support to the parents of Harry Richford and the other children who have died or had their health severely impaired by the trust. It does not start just two years ago. In 2010 there was a review by NHS Eastern and Coastal Kent on maternity care; safety and quality are mentioned three times in the statement of that review. In 2012 the services were reconfigured despite many concerns of local people. In 2014 the trust was rated inadequate and put in special measures by the CQC—it left special measures in 2017. In 2015 there was an expert report by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists warning about many of the problems that emerged in the subsequent tragic deaths of Harry Richford and at least six other babies. And so on and so on.
The expert review said that action needed to be taken quickly. This report was not passed to the CQC. Why, given that the hospital was in special measures, was the report not handed to the CQC and why on earth was the hospital allowed to continue out of special measures after that when there were clearly still major problems? Following on from the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, why did the chief exec and, I presume, the board not read, implement and monitor this expert review?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness raises an important question, which I am sure will be considered as part of NHS England’s independent review and the CQC’s questions around quality of leadership, but I will make a wider point for those who may be listening about the safety of maternity care in the UK. We are rightly focusing on the questions of East Kent, but for those who may be considering giving birth at the moment it is important to state that the NHS is one of the safest places in the world to give birth. Some 0.7% of births result in a stillbirth or neonatal birth. We have stated that our ambition is to halve this rate of stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths, and brain injuries by 2025. We have already achieved our ambition of a 20% reduction by 2020. A message of reassurance, alongside the firm actions we are taking to address the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, is appropriate and important.
Lord Ribeiro (Con)
My Lords, I echo the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, about the role of the chief executive. I watched the news last night and was horrified to hear her say that she had no knowledge of the review until 2018, yet that review was requested by the medical director of the trust in 2015. If she is unaware of what is happening in her own trust, serious questions need to be asked. In view of what the noble Baroness just said about maternity services, it is important that we send a very clear message to our midwives on the front line. They need to be supported and we need to send the message, not just to the ones in East Kent but to those throughout the UK, that they have our support.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
My noble friend is, as ever, very wise on this. A key plank of the maternity safety strategy, launched in 2016, is a number of initiatives to improve not only clinical care but culture in maternity services. They have been designed to improve leadership and to ensure that in every trust there is a midwife, an obstetrician and a board-level maternity safety champion to spearhead improvement. It is critical that we ensure that this is delivered so that incidents such as this do not occur.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, there is no question but that our maternity services across the piece are under enormous pressure. We know that in 2017, somewhere between 30% and 40% of all babies born in the UK were born to foreign nationals. Will the Minister tell me, in broad terms, do foreign nationals, when they have babies in this country, make a financial contribution?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
People are entitled to free NHS care if they are ordinarily resident in the UK. However, my noble friend’s wider point about the pressure on maternity services was absolutely right. That is why, in February 2018, the Government announced an additional 3,650 training places for midwives. I am pleased to say that the first 650 began their training in September 2019 to ease the pressure, and there will be 1,000 training places for each of the next three years. This should ease the pressure and address some of the concerns my noble friend raised.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I draw the Minister’s attention to one of the first advocacy schemes for maternity care, which still operates in Tower Hamlets 35 or 38 years onwards. When I was working there, I dealt with a number of cases where there were complaints from parents. Will she commend the efforts of the parents, who persisted in taking their complaints so far up? Without their knowledge, persistence and dedication, we would not have come to this point where we are seriously questioning the competence of the staff.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
We are obviously very grateful to all those brave enough to bring their stories forward in the midst of extreme tragedy and pain. We know that it is not easy and that within the culture of the NHS, it can sometimes be extremely hard to break through the barriers of not denial, but resistance. We should pay tribute to all those who have campaigned for maternity safety. In particular, I pay tribute to my right honourable friend Jeremy Hunt, who began a lot of the work to improve maternity services when he was Health Secretary, and to James Titcombe, who led a lot of the work relating to Morecambe Bay.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the NHS is overregulated, with lots of overlapping responsibilities between different regulators? Does she agree that we need much greater clarity so that issues such as this, with devastating impacts on people’s lives, are dealt with much more quickly and picked up much sooner, rather than individuals having to make formal complaints?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
My noble friend makes the core point that when an issue arises, there should not be conflict between patients, the NHS and clinicians; it should be possible to resolve the situation in a straightforward way, within a culture not of blame culture but of learning. That is at the core of setting up HSIB, but this culture should go all the way from the grass roots of the NHS up to the very top. That is absolutely a part of the patient safety agenda we are trying to instil.
Tree Pests and Diseases
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hope of Craighead
That this House takes note of the threats posed by pests and diseases to native trees in the United Kingdom.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, it is a real privilege for me to have been asked to open this debate. Before I go any further, I should explain that I am doing so on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who I am glad to see in his place. It was his idea, and he secured the debate just before his appointment as chairman of the EU Committee made it impossible for him to open it himself. That is why I am speaking now. I can only hope that I can do justice to this crucially important subject in the time available. Of course, I look forward very much indeed to hear what he will have to say when his turn comes to speak, and I know that it is largely due to his initiative that so many noble Lords have put their names down to speak—and many noble Lords have told me that they were unable to do so because of time constraints. So it is a very important subject, which has been well recognised.
The issue to which the Motion draws attention is sadly all too familiar to those of us who care about the countryside and the creatures, including the plants and trees, that are to be found there. The threats posed by non-native animals which become pests is not a new issue. As long ago as 1935, Evelyn Baxter and Leonora Rintoul, in their book A Vertebrate Fauna of Forth, noted that the spread of the grey squirrel in their part of Scotland was likely to be troublesome, and that a good many complaints had already been made about the damage done to trees by that animal. It is now recognised that the grey squirrel is at the top of the list of the introduced species which are regarded as pests that are damaging, especially to trees.
The damage done to ground-nesting birds by another species imported from North America, the mink, has caused great concern. It is only now being brought under control by eliminating that animal from places where it has caused the most damage, particularly the Outer Hebrides. The devastating effect on native species in our rivers by the introduction of signal crayfish from North America to combat European crayfish disease is another example. Then there is the threat to trees caused by tree pests and tree diseases.
There is of course an aesthetic aspect to this problem. No one likes to see dead or dying trees. I think the elms were the first to go; their sad and empty corpses still stand along the edges of fields, as there is no profit to be made from cutting them down. About 35 years ago, acute oak decline made its appearance, and more recently the oak processionary moth, which causes rashes and breathing difficulties for some people and animals, arrived here in 2005. We have also seen the devastating effects of the fungus that causes ash dieback, especially among young trees, which have been planted to improve the contribution that deciduous woodlands make to our environment.
These pests and diseases have wider effects, too. Trees, after all, are part of a much larger ecosystem that includes the birds, animals and insects that inhabit them. When the trees die, the adverse effects extend well beyond the trees themselves. We are fortunate at Craighead, at 1,100 feet in the hills of north-east Perthshire. About 150 years ago, five trees were planted beside the shepherd’s moorland cottage that we now own. They consist of two sycamores, two ash trees and one elm. I hope that I am not tempting fate when I say that they all remain in good health. Indeed, the elm recently seeded a baby elm, which too is doing well. We have planted numerous other trees ourselves—alder, rowan and birch. They provide shelter for a variety of warblers and finches, which we did not have around us before they were planted, but it is the old trees that are the most important for our ecology.
Many birds and numerous insects inhabit them. Most entertaining are the crossbills, which bring their recently fledged young in early spring—just about now in February—to nibble the buds of our ash trees. The young ones do not have cross bills, so nibbling ash trees is much easier than trying to grapple with a pine cone. A pair of starlings nests each year in a hole in one of the ash trees, and swallows circle around all five trees in the summer, picking up the many insects that they attract. The trees are a place of refuge for a variety of ground-feeding birds, which are at risk of being picked off, when out in the open, by a passing merlin or sparrowhawk. So much of that activity would be lost to us if our old trees were to die. This is just a tiny glimpse of a very much larger problem spread throughout the United Kingdom.
It is possible to attribute the arrival of such pests and diseases into the UK to two causes. One is the force of nature itself. By that I mean that they are carried to these shores by birds and insects blown across the sea from continental Europe. There is not much we can do about that, other than to keep our eyes open and seek to eliminate the risk of their spreading by careful management and research into how to tackle them, as much as we can. Birds move around, after all, and the migration of insect species, such as the painted lady butterfly, shows that insects move around too.
The origin of the spread of alien diseases to our native trees, such as the non-native fungus that causes ash dieback and acute oak decline, is not easy to determine. It seems likely that the force of nature had something to do with it, but we must accept part of the blame too, as too little attention was given, in the past, to keeping our eyes open and preventing them gaining a foothold here.
The other cause we must face is misguided or careless human activity. Importing sapling trees from abroad risks bringing alien diseases with them, as well as pests. We have something to learn from the way that controls are imposed by the authorities in New Zealand on the importation into that country of any plant, seed or other vegetable material. The biosecurity controls at their airports far exceed those in operation in the United Kingdom, as I once discovered when I arrived in that country having in my bag a rather attractive and innocent-looking pine cone. I had picked it up on holiday in southern California. I was warned by a form, which I had to complete, to declare any such items on arrival. I duly did so, only to find that I was being treated almost as if I were a criminal. I was escorted on arrival to an office, where the pine cone was impounded. It was sealed inside a plastic bag by an officer wearing rubber gloves, who was distinctly unfriendly, and placed in quarantine. Moreover, I was ordered to sign a form giving my flight details and undertaking to collect it on my way out. Doing that took a lot of time and I nearly missed my flight home. They assumed of course that I would declare my pine cone to the authorities on my return to the United Kingdom, but, on my arrival, I could not see anyone to whom I could declare it—so, I am ashamed to say, I never did.
Now we are about to embark on a major expansion of our woodlands in this country, as part of our contribution to combating climate change. Some idea of the scale of this project can be gathered from a recommendation of the Woodland Trust, which is such a force for good in this context, that 30 new trees should be planted to replace every single tree that has to be taken down for the development of HS2. I believe that this massive drive to plant new trees, however laudable on climate change grounds, carries with it real dangers. Let us hope that we can boost our native nursery production to keep pace with demand, and that the young stock that is used for this expansion is carefully chosen to see that it is free from alien diseases.
Leaving trees aside, we are all too familiar with the way the introduction of non-native species can affect the survival of those that are native to these islands. The grey squirrel is one example that I have given; American mink and signal crayfish are two more. Some of the worst examples of misguided human activity can be found in New Zealand and Australia, where serious damage has been caused by the uncontrolled spread of rabbits. The sad fact is that the introduction of a non-native species to control another can make matters worse—we have the example of the signal crayfish. In New Zealand, stoats were introduced to control the rabbits, but they soon devastated that country’s unique ground-nesting wildlife, which had evolved in the absence of any predatory land mammals.
Man’s introduction of non-native birds can be just as damaging. The common myna was introduced to control insect pests in Australia, but it has caused widespread damage to native birds in the competition for nesting sites. I do not think that the European blackbirds, song thrushes and yellowhammers, which seem to flourish in New Zealand, do any harm there, but the European starling is a real pest, as it is in some parts of North America. The cactus wren, which nests in holes in the tall saguaro cactus trees in Arizona, finds it hard to maintain its numbers in the face of competition for these holes from starlings. There are lessons for us in these examples: there are dangers in trying to control non-native pests by the introduction of non-native predators. This applies not just to animals and birds; the introduction of non-native insects to do the same thing can be just as damaging, unless care is taken to assess the effects before it is too late.
I worry about the recent introduction of the white-tailed sea eagle to Mull and other parts of the west Highlands. The return of the osprey, which is not man-assisted, is very welcome and I am not aware of any adverse consequences. One could say the same thing about the collared dove, which extended its range from eastern Europe with remarkable speed and reached us in the 1960s; but the sea eagle, whose return was man-assisted, preys extensively on lambs and is at risk of driving some sheep farmers out of business. Rewilding of this kind by the introduction of species that used to breed here is a romantic idea that seems unlikely to cause undue damage to our native wildlife, but it does have its dangers too.
Against that sad background, I very much welcome Defra’s tree health resilience strategy, which was published in May 2018. It was set up to reduce the risk of pest and disease threats to trees and increase their resilience to such threats. Among other things, the strategy is designed to establish common UK-wide approaches, along with the devolved Administrations, to plant health policy. Given that, I will seek four assurances from the Minister.
First, can we be assured that the action plan really is being put into practice and that the funding it needs to implement common rules and ways of working will be maintained well into the future, notwithstanding the effects of Brexit? Secondly, can we be assured that the budget for combating the importation of invasive species, which at present is a minute part of the total spend on biosecurity, will be increased to keep pace with the increasing challenges that we face, including the importation, if it continues, of new trees?
Thirdly, can we be assured that, now that we have left the EU, we will keep closely in touch with EU environmental law and that common approaches to retained EU law will be maintained with the devolved Administrations so that there will be no loopholes through which pests and diseases might creep? Fourthly, can the greatest care be taken to see that, when new woodlands are being planted here by private individuals, local bodies and other organisations, the trees that are chosen are taken from stock that has been grown in the British Isles, not imported from overseas, and that it is truly disease free? I beg to move.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, it is sobering to consider that not many of us alive today remember what the English countryside looked like before the ravages of Dutch elm disease. It is for those of us who do remember to draw a parallel between that cataclysm and the one we are told is about to descend on us with ash dieback, which I think will alter the countryside to a far greater degree than most can appreciate. It is timely that we are having this debate, and I congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Hope and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on securing it.
I served recently on your Lordships’ ad hoc Rural Economy Committee. In our report we laid emphasis on the importance of a place-based approach. This is particularly true of any discussion about woodland tree pests and diseases, where my personal experience and observations relate specifically to Kent. We have two tree types most at risk from disease: the native oak, and the sweet chestnut, historically an import but which has now become part of our woodland vernacular.
With the Chatham dockyard nearby and the oaks of England providing the crucial first line of defence in the construction of ships of the line for the Royal Navy from Elizabethan to Napoleonic times, oaks and Kent come naturally in the same sentence. Oak dieback and acute oak decline have been evident for a number of years. We have an ongoing monitoring programme, and in many instances it seems difficult to distinguish dieback from the other diseases from which the oak suffers, such as defoliation by the oak processionary moth. Certain gradual and sudden deaths are problematic to diagnose, with some people maintaining that perhaps certain individual trees have been weakened by the effects of global warming—on which I have my doubts. Oak and ash trees dying across our landscape would make it nigh on unrecognisable, and any science that can be funded to help arrest such a tragedy should be hugely encouraged.
Kent has many tens of thousands of acres of sweet chestnut, a versatile wood used historically for pit props in east Kent coalfields, hop poles when we had a vibrant beer industry, charcoal when London depended on that fuel source, and fencing materials. It is still valued for the last and is an excellent biomass fuel source, given the intensity of its burn. The arrival of sweet chestnut blight has given us cause for huge concern. While it seems to be contained currently, it has brought home the need for the proper monitoring of imports and for endless in-field or in-wood vigilance.
Those who lived through the great storm of 1987 remember its immediate effects, but those who were in the eye of it continue to live with its consequences. For us in west Kent, the obliteration of the deer fences at the National Trust’s Knole Park resulted in the introduction to the locality of a fallow deer herd population that has been impossible to control. The effect on natural regeneration of native woodland has been devastating and catastrophic, as has the effect on ground-nesting birds when all natural cover has been grazed away. There are said to be more deer in England now than at any time in our history, which will have a severely detrimental effect on self-sown and self-selecting species. Advocates of rewilding who want to include the introduction of deer in that process should realise the disadvantages this can produce.
However, the foreign invader that has taken most advantage of the devastation wrought by the storm is the rhododendron ponticum, another persistent and vigorous invader that leaves a barren undercanopy that is hostile to all our native fauna and flora. Along with other plants introduced originally for Victorian gardens, such as Japanese knotweed, it is expensive and time-consuming to deal with and should be in the bull’s-eye for any new forestry grant programme that emanates from the Agriculture Bill.
Last but by no means least is the destroyer of much new tree growth, the grey squirrel—evidenced by brown strips of barked saplings and dead new growth in plantation and coppice—another pest introduced for aesthetic reasons with no appreciation of the damage it could do if left unchecked, not least to our native red squirrel, birds’ eggs and unfledged chicks. It seems we are unable to control it—a view that probably has much in common with the prevailing wisdom of our grandparents’ generation about the rabbit, which in its millions was devastating field and woodland crops. That was controlled in the end by the advent of myxomatosis. Let us hope that scientists can come up with a more humane solution for the grey squirrel, but a solution there must be if we are to encourage a vibrant commercial woodland industry.
We can expect to have to deal with natural and weather-related disasters, and we are at the mercy of windborne spores and pests, such as ash cholera and the box moth, but what we can prevent we must guard against, such as the import of disease on young plants and the release into the wild of animals that will upset our wonderful, historic, native ecosystem. We should also guard against our own ill-thought-out measures such as plastic tree guards, which blight our woodland for decades and leave permanent pollution.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for obtaining the debate and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cope of Craighead, for his excellent introduction. For these Benches, and indeed for many Members of your Lordships’ House, trees have a special significance. They feature in the first chapter of the holy scriptures in Genesis and they reappear in the final chapter of the Bible in the Book of Revelation chapter 22, where we find that enigmatic phrase
“the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.”
The ancients certainly knew some of the medicinal properties of leaves. Perhaps what they did not quite realise in the way we do today, due to scientific research, is the extraordinarily vital role trees play in modern life by absorbing carbon dioxide and other chemicals, and trapping airborne dust. Strategically planted trees, along with appropriate hedging, can make a material difference by reducing pollution alongside busy roads. In urban areas they regulate temperature, helping to reduce heat in the summer and, if planted in the right places, acting as windbreaks and even providing energy savings in the winter.
We have yet again been facing more flooding and revisiting its causes, part of which is to do with the removal of important areas of trees, which have the ability to slow down the run-off when there are heavy rains and which themselves absorb massive amounts of water. As well as providing habitats for wildlife, they have many wider benefits. Indeed, some research suggests that when people recuperate in hospitals they do so at a faster rate if they have windows looking out over the countryside, particularly where there are trees.
Three miles north of St Albans where I live is the newish Heartwood Forest, on the edge of the village of Sandridge. It is a wonderful project that has been developed by the Woodland Trust. It has 850 acres— 340 hectares—of woodland, with more than half a million native trees. Half a million is a lot of trees to get planted, yet the Committee on Climate Change recommends that we will need to plant about 30,000 hectares —74,000 acres—of woodland annually if we are to address issues of climate change. So far we are planting fewer than that. Indeed, some voices claim that we ought to be planting more like a billion trees, which may seem beyond our reach and an impossible target.
However, we can learn a lot from Heartwood Forest. It has been the most extraordinary initiative, bringing together local people to work voluntarily on the project. It is increasing wildlife and involving many groups and schools from every part of society. Above all it has produced a wonderful local amenity that is drawing people from a wide area to enjoy the walks. It is good for the physical and mental health of the local community.
Tree planting is crucial for much wider issues, as is trying to work out how we can prevent the death of those trees that are dying. It is notable that, as Defra put it, since 2010, some 15 million trees have been planted, and there is a 25-year environmental plan to grow woodland cover further.
In the dioceses of the Church of England we are playing our part. The Diocese of Lincoln is planning to use small areas of underproductive glebe for tree planting. The Bishop of Norwich has taken to presenting all confirmation candidates with a hazel sapling, so that they can plant a tree and one day hold a hazelnut. Those who know the spiritual works of Julian of Norwich will understand the hazelnut’s significance. The plans for the Lambeth Conference taking place in Canterbury this summer include planting the “Lambeth Grove” on four acres of diocesan land near the village of Shepherdswell.
I am glad to have planted more than 40 trees in my garden in the last few years. However, turning to the focus of today’s debate—the increase in diseases and pests affecting our native trees—the close connection with climate change makes this important not only for those of us who love and plant trees. How do we get this virtuous cycle going? There is evidence that some diseases are surviving in this country because our temperature is edging up. The danger is that as diseases take hold because the new climate is more attractive for them, it will be even harder to get the extra trees in, not least our native trees. Native trees are less likely to need lots of fertilisers, and are more likely to grow healthily, because this is where they have developed.
How do we address this downward spiral, when, with increasing temperatures, more diseases are coming? There is the danger that we are fighting a losing battle. Therefore, I ask the Minister, first, about the general commitment of the Government to tree planting for rural landowners. Is that going to continue? Can it be increased? To what extent is it dependent on planting native trees?
Secondly, what are Her Majesty’s Government doing to reduce dramatically the numbers of trees being imported? Can we follow the good example of the Woodland Trust, which now only plants trees propagated in this country? What representations are the Government making to the largest landowners in the country to encourage them to get on board with the prevention of native tree diseases and pests? Finally, what assessment is being made of Defra’s tree health resilience strategy? How do we know what impact it is making and how can we build on it in the years to come?
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for introducing this very important subject at such a crucial time.
I will concentrate almost entirely on ash dieback. We were slow in waking up to this terrible threat to our ash, and I am not sure that, even now, we are fully aware of the scale of the devastation upon us. Writing in 2012, George Monbiot pointed out that there had been clear signs of the disease for the previous three years and nothing had been done about it. Since then, the Government have taken a number of valuable initiatives, as outlined in the Answer to my Oral Question on 25 June last year. However, the rapidity of the spread has taken everyone by surprise. There is now hardly any part of the country unaffected. I spent last summer in west Wales, on the edge of Cardigan Bay. Normally, I look out over a field lined with the most glorious green ash on either side.
In the Bible there is a little-known form of poetic literature called a lament. The sight of those devastated ash trees provoked in me nothing less than such a lament:
“Thin branches stripped bare, stark against the sky,
Dry sticks prodding the air
Through leaves once fair,
Now drooping. O why?
Dying back. Dying back.
Fresh leaves once so green and fresh
Sagging in defeat,
Once you rose so high above the fern.
Great green Wales in slow retreat.
Dying back. dying back”.
What is happening to our trees is indeed an occasion for lament. I have mentioned ash, others have mentioned chestnut and oak, and I am sure we shall hear more about that.
We are waking up to this, but I am not sure that we have even now ascertained the scale of it. At the moment the ash is a major feature of our landscape. There are 123,000 hectares of ash in stocked woodlands, second only to oak in extent. Outside woodlands, the UK has an estimated 60 million ash trees, which represent 12% of our broadleaf. However, the ash is important not only for itself but for the species associated with it. There are 955 species associated with ash and 45 of these are thought to have only ever been found on ash trees.
This disease will be devastating not only for the look of the countryside but for all the ecological and environmental benefit trees bring. As we know, trees are fundamental to the ecosystem and play a major role in counteracting the effects of global warming and climate change by absorbing and storing carbon.
There is also the effect on human health. Trees are not only good to look at but are good for our health. Recent studies in medical journals show a correlation between the spread of ash dieback and the increase of respiratory diseases in a given area. In all, Defra has estimated that ash has a social and environmental value of £230 million per year.
One lesson to be learned from what has happened to ash dieback is the need for stricter controls on all imports of seeds and saplings. Ash dieback entered the UK from East Anglia only a few years ago and, as I mentioned earlier, spread with extraordinary rapidity. One question for the Government is whether import controls are stricter now than they were then. I am sure other noble Lords are better qualified than I am to judge whether the steps the Government have so far taken are adequate in this area.
My major concern is, first, with research. It is vital that we identify, develop and plant strains of ash which are resistant to the disease. The Government say that they have put £6 million into this but I wonder whether this is adequate for the scale of the crisis. What success has there so far been in identifying types of ash that are tolerant of the fungus Hymenoscyphus fraxineus, which blocks water getting to the leaves and causes the ash gradually to die back from the branches. When a strain of ash that is tolerant to the disease is found, a replanting programme must begin. This should be on a massive scale.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, some noble Lords will remember—as I do—when our fields and hedgerows were resplendent with the English elm. As a result of Dutch elm disease, 60 million trees were lost in the UK in two epidemics. Only 100 were left after the last one. Now, a variety that is resistant to the disease has been identified. What is the Government’s policy on replanting elm, and what success have they had in replacing those millions of destroyed trees? It was good to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, about the success he has been having in Scotland not only with ash but with elm.
I hope the Government might be spurred by the example of Ethiopia, where there is a programme to plant 4 billion trees in a single year; last year, 330 million were planted in one day alone.
At the moment it is the policy in some areas—for instance, the Ministry of Defence—to fell these trees when they are diseased. Is this really the best policy? It could be argued that if they are left standing—or, at least, if they are left on the ground—all the insects we need in this country could be saved. We are now hearing about an insect apocalypse: 80% of them are about to be lost. We need to retain insect life, on which the whole of the ecosystem depends, in this country in any way we can.
Ash dieback is devastating our countryside, causing significant damage to our ecosystem, to our health—spiritual, mental and physical—and to the economy. There needs to be a sense of urgency, both in research and replanting, which we can but hope will spring from this.
The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and his compelling contribution. Ash is a key part of our garden, and the dieback disease is one glen away from us in Scotland. I also thank and congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Hope. He volunteered to lead the debate, and did so in a far better and more adept way than I could ever have done. Every time we go to New Zealand, we will all remember his story about the pine cone. I fear that I have been a bit guilty of that as well—also from southern California.
We are the stewards of our islands’ environment, and that environment is fragile. The very essence of that environment, and the diversity of flora and fauna it supports, is our native trees. There are today about two oaks for every member of the population. Without the oak, Nelson would have had no ships and this palace would have no panelling and very little furniture. Ash provided the shafts for the arrows at Agincourt, beech gave us the stocks for the muskets at Waterloo, and birch plywood made the wings of the “Wooden Wonder”, the Mosquito.
We enjoy fantastic forestry conditions in these islands. Mild winters, plentiful rainfall, fertile soil and hill-sheltered topography all interact for the good, and growth rates exceed those of mainland Europe. At the end of the First World War less than 5% of Britain’s land surface was wooded. Although this has now risen to 13%, we have far to go. Across the EU, woodland coverage averages 38% of the landscape. I note that France, Germany, Spain and Italy have more than 30% of their landscape covered. All of us in the Chamber are aware of the positive contribution to climate change problems that forestry could make.
Some 44,000 people are employed in UK forestry and primary wood processing, with a GVA of £2.1 billion. How those figures could rise if we were able purposefully to increase our acreage of well-managed woodland—but our native trees have never faced a more formidable spectre of threat than they do today from disease and pests. There are many diseases, and I regret that I do not have time to go into any of them, but, like other noble Lords, I note the absolute necessity for excellent biosecurity and good research.
So I turn to pests. The disease battle is interconnected with pests, as they can be vectors for disease, as both direct carriers and as weakeners of trees, either by opening up wounds that allow secondary attack or simply by stressing the plant. The worst and most destructive of all pests is the grey squirrel. Here, I declare my interests as set out in the register as chairman of the Red Squirrel Survival Trust and of the UK Squirrel Accord. Grey squirrels were first introduced into this country in 1876 in Cheshire. Between 1876 and 1930, around 500 animals are recorded as having been released into the wild. By 1930 or so, awareness had risen sharply of the damage that grey squirrels do to broadleaf trees and to red squirrel numbers, and that was the genesis of anti-grey squirrel feeling. The 500 grey squirrels introduced up to 1930 have grown into a grey squirrel population that 90 years later is estimated at 2.7 million.
The problem where broadleaf trees are concerned is that the grey squirrel ring-barks younger trees to get at the sap. This ring-barking causes terrible wounds to the tree, killing up to 70% of them and making the timber quality of the remainder poor. It is no wonder that grey squirrels and the threat that they pose are, alone, responsible for the dearth of new broadleaf commercial planting in the south-east of England, with all the biodiversity, wildlife and climate advantages that it would bring.
The challenge posed by grey squirrels as the leading threat to trees has given rise to the UK Squirrel Accord with its 37 signatories, comprising the four Governments, their nature agencies, the principal voluntary sector interested parties and the principal private sector representative entities. The Squirrel Accord has commissioned a fertility control project at the Animal and Plant Health Agency which, it is hoped, will perfect a suitable active substance and hopper delivery method to allow simple fertility control to shrink grey squirrel numbers significantly, in turn allowing forestry a chance. We are entering the third of five years of research involving scientists in the UK, the USA and France. Significant progress has been made; I pay a warm tribute to the Minister for his support and encouragement, for APHA reports to him. I look forward to hearing what he will say on this element of the battle against the multiple threats.
The grey squirrel and, indeed, the deer problem—to which the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, referred—are today well managed by some landowners but not at all by others. In the future, the co-operation of all land managers will be vital. This necessity for land-manager engagement applies across all the major environmental and climate challenges that we face.
Before I close, I will make one further point. The oak processionary moth—to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred—was accidentally introduced into Britain in 2005. The oak processionary moth strips trees bare, leaving them weakened and vulnerable to other threats. By the start of 2019, all 33 London boroughs had had outbreaks. While £37 million has been spent by government on control, I regret that the problem seems to have spread to Bracknell and Virginia Water. While this large expenditure is necessary, I note that the research expenditure requests for pests and squirrels are for far lesser sums. I do hope that this balance—between expenditure on control and expenditure on research to try to combat the problem—is carefully considered by the Government.
I close by asking the Minister whether he believes that he has sufficient powers and resources for the battle against the many threats that we are discussing today.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
I first declare my interest as co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Gardening and Horticulture Group which, interestingly, produced a report about 18 months ago. We had a kind of mini Select Committee, but without all the resources. We saw and had written submissions from a number of key people in the horticultural and arboricultural worlds; this was very helpful to us.
What is germane to today’s discussion is that we looked at the problem of pests and diseases, which is of enormous concern in relation not only to trees but to all other plants. We concluded that one key way forward would be to try to home-grow plants as import substitution. We realised that this would not be undertaken overnight, although I must say that Kew botanical gardens gave us a wonderful example by reducing to the absolute minimum any imported trees. Those they do have to import are placed in quarantine for at least 12 months. Maybe others cannot quite match that example, but it is something to which we should aspire as a country, particularly those of us involved in planting trees.
We discovered to our horror that oaks were imported —I imagine they still are. We had details from 2013 to 2015, whereby oaks were imported to the tune of 1.6 million trees. Oaks, the signature tree of the British Isles, are being imported on that scale. There is much to be done regarding oaks and other imports that carry these risks. In that connection, we suggested that there should be a far more robust health assurance scheme for all plants. I hope the Minister will be able to give us more details of what the Government may have in mind because that is key in establishing a healthy population of trees and other plants.
We also looked at how we might help with the issue of imports, which are extremely worrying. One thought that occurred to us was that there should be some tax incentives—something along the lines of the film industry, which has a tax relief on the making of films, subject to various conditions. That would surely help both commercial nurseries trying to grow trees and organisations such as the Woodland Trust and all the other bodies that have an interest in native trees and, above all, in not importing trees. I hope the Minister will look at that very closely.
In addition, we would be anxious to see very different arrangements made for procurements for major government projects. For example, and this is a good example, the Olympic Park got orders well in advance of the needs. As a result, no fewer than 4,000 trees were procured for the park, together with innumerable other plants. All the people in the industry say, “If we are going to grow trees we need a fairly long time lead, so if we are going to do it for commercial purposes we need to be sure that we have that before the capital cost of all this is embarked upon.” I imagine, for example —though this is much contested—that the new high-speed railway will need innumerable trees. Surely we should be getting on with orders for those early, to give our native growers a chance to contribute.
I turn to another matter touched on by others in this debate: research. It is extremely important that research should be dedicated to dealing with pests and diseases in all their various forms; others have given indications of that. Earlier this week I met a gentleman closely concerned with Woodland Heritage. He told me—I think he knew that the Minister was interested in this—that among its other objectives, it has contributed to research funds for acute oak decline. I understand that other bodies, including the City of London, have also contributed and I was told that £2 million has already been raised. However, money does not go too far in these expensive projects, and I hope the Minister can give a clear indication of how much research funding will be available for these purposes in the next few years.
Others have touched on being much more severe about import controls. I should like to add a small, though not particularly technical, point: people import in other countries, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, found when he came across very severe measures. I think we could do with severe measures such as those he had to endure to deal with that pine cone. Notices at all airports and ports of entry should not merely say “Imports of these things are forbidden”; they should explain, in a short manner, why that is important. To the average person, bringing the odd bulb or two in does not seem important. What is involved needs to be spelled out in very clear language. I hope we take that on board. It is not particularly scientific; it simply needs to be drawn to the attention of people who otherwise, quite innocently, would not know what they were doing.
Mention has been made of the importance of growing trees and adding to our list of trees, so the last thing in the world we want is to lose the ones we already have. I look forward to the tree planting that will go on. Like somebody else here, I have done my own small bit by planting some in my garden; I will certainly continue to do so. It would be well advised, in addition to the major schemes, to encourage others individually to do the same.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for bringing this important debate forward. I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner with woodland under active management.
Last summer, the importance of this debate came home to me when I received a call from the Animal and Plant Health Agency, acting on behalf of the Forestry Commission. It wished to inspect two oak trees for the oak processionary moth. I had bought those two trees earlier that year from a well-known nursery. Happily, neither was infected, but it was a wake-up call. Sadly, it had never occurred to me to ask whether these trees were imported; there was certainly no label to indicate that they were imports. The Forestry Commission was able to track the trees to the nursery, and hence to me, but why is there no requirement for nurseries to inform the purchaser of the country of origin? The Woodland Trust has developed an accreditation scheme for domestically produced trees. Surely this should be widened to include foreign-sourced trees. Also, when purchases are made, it is an ideal opportunity to hand over a leaflet on potential threats to trees. Even as the owner of woodland, I have received no such information. Surely this information should be circulated to all registered woodland owners, together with amenity and countryside groups, schools and universities.
The Forestry Commission’s Public Opinion of Forestry 2019 survey confirmed the public’s high regard for trees and woods and their awareness of pests and diseases, which 65% were willing to report if they had the necessary information. The Government’s 2018 tree health resilience strategy says all the right things and calls for 11 actions in its action plan but, again, how will this be delivered and with what resources? The Woodland Trust’s Observatree volunteer scheme is brilliant but needs to be massively expanded to be truly effective.
Moving on to the trees themselves, although native trees are the subject of this debate, the distinction between native and non-native is no longer helpful in the light of a number of factors, including climate change, Chalara in the native ash and the horse chestnut being placed on the red list. Woodland managers are governed by the Forestry Commission’s practice guide, Managing Ancient and Native Woodland in England, which was published in 2010 and covers the species that may be planted in our ancient woodland. Outcome A from page 27, concerning the species composition of native woodland, states:
“The presumption is that the proportion of the canopy occupied by native species is being maintained or increased. In most native woodland at least 80% of the canopy is comprised of native species.”
I believe this proportion to be restrictive and counterproductive. It also fails to take into account the fact that many existing native woodlands were established using a conifer nurse crop. A more enlightened view of species choice is required and forest service area teams need to be allowed more flexibility in the use of non-native and honorary native species such as black walnut, alder and sycamore, particularly when we cannot replant ash, which accounts for more than 10% of our so-called native species. Climate change needs to be taken into account, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said. It affects what species we plant and how well they do.
Many years ago, a former chairman of the Forestry Commission told me that it was the best job in the world, as your mistakes never became apparent till you were long dead. I hope we can move on from this depressing statement.
Then there are the pests, in particular the squirrel. This is what the boss of one of the major woodland management companies said to me last week:
“I myself will no longer fell and restock beech in the Chilterns until we have a more certain future for the trees we are planting. Currently we are often simply planting squirrel food.”
Much has been said and will be said about the grey squirrel. We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the work of the Red Squirrel Survival Trust, UK Squirrel Accord and the European Squirrel Initiative, so I can usefully add little, but I would be interested to hear from the Minister about the funding and likely timing of any sterilisation or oral contraceptive plans. Similarly, there is a directly inherited genetic bias initiative for concentrating on squirrel control through encouraging male offspring rather than female offspring, which helps reduce the population. Once again, I believe that funding is a problem and government support would be appreciated. We cannot and should not eliminate the grey squirrel, but the balance needs to be addressed and every option, including the reintroduction of the pine marten, looked at.
The other major pest, of course, is deer. Progress was being made in this area by the work of the Deer Initiative Ltd, which was set up to deliver the outcomes of the Deer Initiative Partnership. It has had a huge impact on creating best practice in deer control and educating people and institutions in the industry. It has also been involved in the Government’s new scheme for environmental land management, which is a crucial part of the Agriculture Bill. Now it is to be wound up at the end of March due to lack of funding. Please could the Minister look at reviving and resourcing the Deer Initiative, which is crucial in the work of protecting trees, flora and fauna.
These points are but some of the challenges we face. Dealing with them is easier in commercial woodland that is professionally managed than in amenity woodlands in the south of England. For such amenity woods, I urge the Government to look at directing Section 106 money resulting from development into their care and maintenance, and to investigate conditions of increased public access, which would potentially result in more local voluntary help in the preservation of our woodlands.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for introducing this debate. Woodlands, forest areas, parks, gardens and private dwellings bring benefits to those who visit and enjoy them but, as the noble and learned Lord said, they are under constant threat from pests and diseases. I have three points to make: on individual responsibility, on woodland management and on government responsibilities.
I should declare an interest as patron of the Leicestershire end of the National Forest, which was created from redundant coal mines, wasteland areas and other farmland. For the past 25 years, the National Forest Company has worked with partners and landowners to create a new forest across 200 square miles in the heart of the Midlands. Some 80% of these sites have public access, around 10,000 volunteers help in the management of woodlands each year and over 50% of primary schools undertake regular outdoor learning in woodland settings. This is a great achievement in a comparatively short space of time but, like other woodlands, it faces the constant threat of pests and diseases to its native trees.
Currently for the National Forest, grey squirrels and ash dieback are having the greatest impact. Recent figures released by the European Squirrel Initiative—which other noble Lords have spoken about—show that grey squirrels cost English forestry in excess of £40 million per annum. In trying to reduce the spread of diseases, the National Forest Company trains and upskills local volunteers in woodland management and educates the public on a range of preventive measures, from controlling the plant stock that enters the country through to warning dog walkers about keeping their boots clean—simple steps that we can all take.
The Woodland Trust states that there are some 20 non-native pests and diseases affecting native UK trees, six of which have reached epidemic levels. In its briefing, the trust reminds us that it is the landowner who bears the cost when unsafe trees are felled. Clearly prevention is the best and most cost-effective way to manage pests and disease, but what additional biosecurity measures are being considered? I mentioned earlier the damage done by grey squirrels, but deer and muntjac also cause extreme damage to young trees. Do the Government have a wildlife management plan in place and, if so, will they review it?
The European Union Committee, in its report published on 24 October 2018, Brexit: Plant and Animal Biosecurity, noted that the UK currently follows EU legislation on biosecurity, with decisions on implementation made predominately at EU level. On leaving the EU, the UK has opportunity to strengthen and improve our biosecurity, including the checks at ports and airports that have already been mentioned. If the plant passport scheme has failed, what measures will be put in place?
In May 2018, the Government published their Tree Health Resilience Strategy, to which other noble Lords have referred. I hope the Minister will update us on its progress, though I know it has not been a very long period of time. Can he also update us on the new imports notification system which was being developed and was due to be ready for end-to-end testing in January 2019?
The City of London Corporation manages 11,000 acres, including Epping Forest, which protects more ancient trees than any other site in the UK. Monitoring and managing the threats of pest and diseases come at a significant cost. Ramorum disease, commonly known as sudden oak death, also threatens beech trees, and some 80% of the UK’s ancient beech pollards are within Epping Forest. In controlling the disease, the corporation has removed hundreds of rhododendrons, which were referred to by my noble friend Lord Colgrain earlier, and felled over 600 larch trees on the edge of the forest to prevent further spreading. Drastic actions have been taken to preserve the trees. The corporation recognises that prevention is better than cure and has called for the regulations relating to plant and tree nurseries and the movement of vegetation to be reviewed.
I turn to what the Government should be doing—I know my noble friend the Minister is very keen to do all that he can. The Conservative Party manifesto commits the Government to planting many thousands of trees over the coming years. Clearly these trees planted should be disease free but, with trade becoming increasingly global, I believe there is an urgent need for stricter controls to be put in place on imported plants and trees. We should know where these trees are coming from. If disease is imported, then surely the rule that the polluter pays—to which we pay great credit—should be considered back through the supplier to the nursery that produced the trees in the first place.
Trees bring enormous benefits, as we have heard from other speakers. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for reminding us that we are stewards for future generations. As a hazel nut, I have a great interest in and love of trees. I cannot think why my parents called me Hazel—though I am not a nut. This debate is crucial not only for us now but the many generations that will follow us.
Lord Chartres (CB)
My Lords, many noble Lords have already spoken with great practical experience—I think of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—and my education has been vastly improved by membership of your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It was on that committee, with a regulation relating to two woods in Kent, that I very first heard of the eight-toothed spruce bark beetle, which is a truly fearsome beast. It is of course only one of the wave after wave of pests and diseases—noble Lords have already made this point very eloquently—but they are all comparatively recent introductions. We are not talking about great historic scourges, but things that have cropped up in the very recent past.
The excellent Tree Health Resilience Strategy, which has been instanced on a number of occasions, describes the
“social, cultural and environmental value”
of trees. It states that it is a value not easily captured by traditional accounting methods but is nevertheless very real. The symbolic value of trees was brought home to me in a very dramatic way. I was trying to establish a centre for preventing and transforming conflict, especially that with a religious dimension. It was an interfaith centre and a Muslim friend offered to build me a Bedouin tent for encounters, meetings and mediation. It was made of goat’s hair and Gore-Tex, so when it rained it exuded the most marvellous fragrance which rolled down Bishopsgate. It was a very unusual tent in that we decided it needed to have stained glass windows with symbols for all the great wisdom traditions of the world. As we consulted and deliberated, we discovered that the tree is a profound symbol in every single one of the great wisdom traditions. Our stained glass windows feature trees appropriate to each of the major world religions.
Of course, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has remarked, right at the beginning of the Hebrew scriptures we have the myth of the two trees in the paradise garden: the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. The tree of knowledge is fatal because it is exploitative knowledge; it is knowledge torn from its connections with human health and flourishing, and knowledge that treats trees simply as an economic factor, a commodity. Our problems come, very often, from choosing the wrong tree. That myth in the paradise garden of the two trees is one that still has resonance. I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said very eloquently about Epping Forest, which I know, and the extraordinary importance of the work being done by the City of London Corporation to protect a very large number of some of the most ancient trees in the entire UK.
Clearly, Brexit gives an opportunity for the overhaul of biosecurity regulations at our borders. I know that the Government already placed additional restrictions, last July, on the importation of oak trees to help reduce the spread of OPM, but I echo other noble Lords in asking the Minister whether there are plans to incentivise the creation of nurseries for native tree stocks to reduce the need for imports. As they look at the very welcome pledges on tree planting, all my friends where I now live, in south Wiltshire, are asking where all these trees are going to come from.
In the many ancient woods that surround us in south Wiltshire, ash dieback, which was described in a very moving way by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, is a particular problem. Landowners face issues of public safety and financial considerations, given the current oversupply of timber in the market. There are major financial implications for landowners in trying to fight this disease. The Conservative manifesto included a welcome commitment to plant 11 million trees, but some of those responsible for managing woodlands are asking where this new stock is going to come from. The Woodland Trust’s UK assurance initiative and the Grown in Britain scheme are very welcome developments, but we are still, as other noble Lords have said, too dependent on imports. Landowners are also saying that the policy of public money for public goods will have to recognise that putting agricultural land to forestry can reduce capital value and future potential for other uses. There are also substantial areas of existing woodland currently not managed at all, and landowners need incentives to manage what is already there, in addition to new planting initiatives.
That brings us to the problem, which I do not think has been mentioned yet, and which is especially acute in England, of skills shortages among staff in the various aspects of arboriculture. This has obvious implications for policy on apprenticeships and the like. I believe that the Government can rightly point to investment and commitment in this area. A sense of urgency is clearly right. The heart-breaking photographs of rows of uprooted olive trees in some of the poorest regions of Italy are testimony to the devastating effects of Xylella fastidiosa. We have so far avoided that invader and that scourge, but it could very well cause havoc in the trees of this country.
Just as the scriptures begin with the myth of the two trees, at the end, as the right reverend Prelate has said, there is a vision of healthy trees planted by the riverside. Let us hope that that will be the picture of the UK in years to come.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, in the last two decades alone, there have been 14 new diseases and five new major pest outbreaks that threaten our woodlands. All these pests and diseases have been aided and abetted by the single most dangerous pest to woodlands in the UK: we humans. Not only have we imported many of the pests and dispersed them around the country, but despite having an excellent climate for growing trees in this country we are, in general, bad at forestry and silviculture. The statistics make dismal reading. Despite the fact that the amount of land under woodland has tripled in the last century, the UK is the world’s second largest net importer of timber. Some 77% of our broadleaf woodlands are still represented by only five species, and disease is currently wiping one of them, ash, out.
Some 15% of our broadleaf woodland, including our best beech trees, are damaged by grey squirrels. It almost impossible to grow commercial broadleaf timber in the UK. Importantly, and I stress this, 58% of our woodlands and 80% of our broadleaf woodlands are unmanaged or badly managed. We are woefully ill equipped for the further challenges of rapid man-made climate change. Unmanaged woodlands are a result of years of Governments virtually ignoring the needs of private sector forestry and receiving poor advice. The Forestry Commission is no longer fit for purpose. Its structure is flawed and it remains, in good communist fashion, the regulator, prosecutor, judge and jury of forestry in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, reminded us that as a large landowner it has got away unchallenged with its own mistakes while costing the taxpayer a great deal of money.
Poor or no management occurs primarily because it is uneconomic to manage woodland as a timber crop. It is a well-established fact that trees get stressed and when they do, they, just like us humans, are much more susceptible to diseases and pests. The condition of individual trees and the structure of stands are important determinants of the extent of such damage, but the degree to which this is true, and the mechanisms, vary. Where most trees have vigorous, healthy crowns and a suitably large growing space for their position in the structure, they are much more resilient than where excessive lateral competition produces stands with poor crowns. Unfortunately, our planting system of even-aged, single species grown in straight rows, as preferred by the Forestry Commission, leads to dense stands with quiet, humid conditions. Trees in this situation are under severe stress and species such as ash and oak, which are particularly intolerant of lateral competition, become highly susceptible. Conditions in dense stands of ash lead to increased spore production and greater damage from ash dieback, while in oak stands, the beetle causing acute oak decline is attracted to the stressed individuals. Unmanaged woodland—more than half our woodlands is in this condition—becomes a haven for pests and diseases.
Owners are also implementing non-intervention management because of a misguided intention to help wildlife. However, there is strong evidence from studies of plants, insects and birds that some of our best-loved woodland wildlife is in crisis. The richness of woodland plant species has declined by 19%, woodland butterfly populations by 74% and birds by 32%. Poor or no management is putting at risk not only our biosecurity but our biodiversity. To mitigate these threats, it is long overdue that we move to a more sustainable tree management system that avoids large concentrations of young, dense, pole-staged stands with low air movement and potential for high build-up of fungal spores and pests.
We should aim for woodlands of mixed and uneven aged species. These more open stands have better airflow and can develop under-storeys which are beneficial in deflecting spore movement. I have advocated this for more than 50 years and I am delighted that there is growing support for it from companies such as SelectFor Ltd. Sadly, there are still far too many flat-earthers in positions of control and influence in the forestry world who are protecting their established ways. Ideally, such a system as I recommend should include self-sown trees, but that is unlikely now, given our inability to control the deer population explosion. Lovely as they are, excessive numbers mean they become a pest and are a threat not only to young trees but to biodiversity, the environment and humans.
My noble friend Lady Byford was right to say that good management is expensive. I shall give one example. Richmond and Bushy Parks have an annual budget of £200,000 to manage the problem of oak processionary moth, and last year 9,000 nests were removed. How many landowners and farmers, whom the Government are encouraging to plant trees, does the Minister know who have budgets to control the moth in the same way as the Royal Parks?
The new enthusiasm to plant trees is welcome, but that is the easy bit. On its own, the Forestry Commission’s mantra of “the right tree in the right place for the right reason” is just fatuous claptrap. As the Royal Forestry Society accurately states in its latest report, Forestry and Climate Change, planting more trees is fine but managing them and our existing woods is a long-term commitment requiring considerable skill and perseverance. There are exceptions but generally, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, has just told us, we are woefully lacking in those skills in the UK and there is no structure or funding to redress that. If forestry is not profitable, the taxpayer needs to help those who plant and manage trees, just as we do with those who plant crops. If we do not do this, our grandchildren will end up with empty plastic tubes and distorted, valueless timber.
I will finish with a quote from Tony Kirkham, the head of the arboretum at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Although it is contrary to our current forestry practice, I commend it to the Government and all who plant trees. When referring to the great storm of 1987, he said:
“The golden rule that I got from the storm was that you’ve got to copy nature and run with her and you’ll succeed.”
The Earl of Cork and Orrery (CB)
My Lords, I echo the thanks to my noble and learned friend Lord Hope and my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for procuring this valuable debate. I declare an interest as a trustee of the International Dendrology Society. It is an honour to follow so many knowledgeable noble Lords, but it must be said that at this point in the debate, 10 speakers in, we are all likely to be crossing similar paths in various areas, so please forgive me when I cross ground that has already been touched on.
Trees are such an integral part of our landscape, both urban and rural. They support biodiversity by housing a wide range of animals and providing them with food. They help make towns and cities attractive places to live and boost mental health. Imagine cities without the plane, platanus hispanica, or the common sycamore, acer pseudoplatanus—note the relationship—or even the flowering cherries and magnolias, silver birches and horse chestnuts which line our streets, fill our parks and keep us cool in summer, while also marking the passing of the seasons.
Imagine, too, the countryside of Britain without those crowning glories among our common trees: ash, oak, beech, chestnuts—both horse and sweet—birch and alder. The list goes on, but one is missing: the English elm. Much reference has already been made to this wonderful tree, and the fact that many of us in this House are old enough to remember the majestic columns of ulmus procera dominating the countryside. There are now only a few thousand healthy specimens of this variety left in the UK, mainly in urban environments and, surprisingly, most in Brighton, after the ravages of Dutch elm disease killed an estimated 25 million trees. This pest, a beetle, was first identified in 1918 in Holland by some very well resourced and clever microbiologists; that epidemic died out and a second and more virulent attack hit the whole of northern Europe in the 1960s. This appears to have originated in Canada on imported logs, so it is not fair to blame the poor Dutch. However, this pest showed us in sobering fashion what could happen if insufficient measures were taken to control it. We do not seem to have learned that lesson.
This brings me to the disaster facing one of our best loved and most numerous native trees: Fraxinus excelsior, the European ash. In this case, the problem is a fungus rather than a beetle, although the Americans are facing a similar disaster caused by a beetle, the emerald ash borer, which has not yet made an appearance in this country. Our ash dieback is caused by the fungus Chalara fraxinea, which originated in Asia. Recent estimates suggest that this disease will kill around 70% of our native ash, which will amount to something in the order of 70 million trees. Some surveys put the total number of mature trees in the country as high as 130 million. When you consider the size and visual impact of this species, that will leave an even bigger hole in our landscapes than the elm.
The fungus arrived here by various means, including wind spread, but one of those routes was undoubtedly the major trade in young plants imported from Holland. The Dutch nursery trade is hugely successful, and I have no problem with that, but it flies in the face of common sense to import ash whips and saplings from a known disease-ridden environment to plant in our gardens and parks. Ash both seeds and grows prolifically in this country, as anyone who has had to pull up ash seedlings around ash trees knows only too well. Why then do we need to allow the import of such plant material? However, unreported so far by other commentators, I am told that Queen Mary University has managed to isolate the genome of disease-resistant ash trees they have found. This gives us hope that maybe we can go forward with a method of planting ash that will remain resistant.
On a related point, a great many of these ash trees we will lose are in hedgerows and parks around the country. When they die, as they assuredly will, it is a known fact that they become brittle and if left standing are likely to drop limbs or even fall over altogether. The idea of leaving them, as elms were left, simply does not stand up—sorry for the bad pun. This makes them dangerous and those responsible for them, be they in public or private ownership, will be liable. This will entail felling and removal of any tree within 60 to 70 feet of a road or footpath.
This process will be very costly; the cost to the economy has already been estimated at £15 billion. Will the Government be prepared to assist local authorities and landowners in the removal of this vast stock of dead wood? Some form of grant linked to the number of trees to be dealt with and a specific timescale would be a good starting point. The silver lining is that ash is an excellent firewood and can be turned into woodchips for biomass fuel plants. Perhaps the Government could go further and incentivise the building or conversion of such plants to ensure that this unfortunate source of energy is not wasted.
In my own small patch of west Sussex, surrounded by unmanaged woodland, I have in the region of 50 ash trees in a patch of less than three acres. All are affected to a greater or lesser extent. Extraction will involve heavy machinery and, with the Wealden clay underfoot, it would be impossible for about nine months of the year. With no road close by, it will be extremely difficult, not to mention messy and unsightly. Scale that up to the size of the ash woods prevalent in the south of England and you can see the problem.
In the current wave of enthusiasm for planting trees to offset our carbon emissions, some words of caution should be voiced. Politicians like big numbers; Jeremy Corbyn promised to plant 2 billion trees over the next 20 years. This would be the equivalent of 100 million a year. That is the equivalent of 270,000 for every day of the year, or nearly 200 per minute. This is, however, only about twice the estimated requirement for carbon neutrality by 2050 to be achieved. This would require UK woodland cover to increase from about 13% of total land area to about 20%, but much of that increase would have to be on land currently used for farming purposes. The conflicts of interest are obvious. These trees should be UK native species and not so-called non-natives. A native species arrived here before or during the last ice age; non-natives, by definition, arrived over the last 8,000 years. This should not include exotics, such as the fast-growing conifer types which have been imported, largely from North America, to provide the so-called battery hens of the arbori- cultural world.
With Brexit, we have an ideal opportunity to strengthen our phytosanitary regulations. We have talked about invasive plant and animal species; these regimes must be strengthened and enforced, and we should certainly stop the import of plant varieties which have a history of disease and can be grown from seed or cutting successfully within our own industry. Further appropriate funding for the Animal and Plant Health Agency would be a start.
Sadly, it is too late for the ash, but it may still be possible to save and protect other species such as oak and chestnut. The Government’s tree health resilience strategy of 2018 was a good start, but can the Minister outline the measures being taken to improve our protective shield in the wake of Brexit and inform us of progress made in achieving the aims of that strategy in the two years since publication?
Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful both to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for first pursuing, and then persevering with, this crucial debate. I am pleased that it has survived both the pest of Prorogation and the Disease of dissolution to make its way to the Floor of your Lordships’ House.
The delay does not make the debate any less urgent: it is more important now than ever. The past six months have seen an escalation in the epidemic of disease impacting our woods. We have also endured a brutal winter of floods, followed by violent storms that destroyed many mature trees weakened by illness. Meanwhile, we have been glibly promised by every major party manifesto an unprecedented level of tree planting in support of net-zero ambitions, but without commitments to undertake the complex research and investment necessary to deliver on such promises.
We hear much about sustainability, but hear no practical plan of what trees to plant, where to plant them, or how to protect them from an early, disease-ridden death. It is sad that more than 300 years after Hans Carl von Carlowitz first coined the term “sustainability” in preserving Germany’s forests, we hear the term bandied about by politicians to greenwash campaigns, but without appreciation of what sustainability costs.
I declare my interests as steward of a family-owned SME that has depended on and nurtured trees since the Middle Ages. I am also, regrettably, subject to statutory plant health notices due to chestnut blight in our ancient woods. Chestnut blight is a pernicious fungal disease that is fatal to sweet chestnuts—a naturalised, not native species. Since its introduction by the Romans, or possibly earlier, the tree has been prized for its nuts, its versatile timber, and its beautiful twisted bark. One of Powderham’s oldest inhabitants is a squat, stag-headed sweet chestnut, planted shortly after the Civil War. It may not live much longer.
Chestnut blight originated in Asia and, after accidental introduction to North America, killed 3.5 billion trees last century, decimating the species on that continent; it has been present in Europe for at least the last half-century. It was first discovered in England in 2011 and was first found within a mature woodland setting at Powderham in 2017. Since then, I have learned more than I would ever wish to know about crypho- nectria parasitica.
It was introduced under a well-intentioned, government-supported planting campaign back in the 1990s. My father was a keen forester and, after felling a block of mature oaks, he replanted chestnut purchased from a reputable nursery. That nursery had sourced its stock from Belgium, which is how the disease entered the country. One of the more impressive aspects of this sad story is the speed with which the Forestry Commission was able to track other chestnuts from the same stock; within weeks, the disease was confirmed across southern England. Served with an SPHN, we worked with the commission to determine a course of action. Our first plan was eradication, and all the 1990s chestnuts were removed and burned. It soon became apparent that the disease was in the wider woodland and therefore, in spring 2019, we felled over 100 mature chestnuts, each over 100 years old: that is more than 10,000 years of tree growth.
The heartwood was cut into sleepers; the rest of each tree was burned on site. A little revenue was thus generated which, together with a restocking grant, meant that the process was marginally cost-negative. To lose money like this felling centuries-old timber was heart-breaking and nonsensical, both for my pocket and for national tree health. While Powderham is able to absorb the loss, other landholders would be severely financially distressed in such circumstances, through no fault of their own. Without better emergency funding, land managers will be discouraged from reporting suspected disease for fear of the punitive costs of eradication.
Recently, blight has been identified in yet more trees. In fact, the experts are on site today to determine the extent; we must assume it is everywhere. Recommendations have changed: given the extent of the disease, we are no longer seeking eradication, preferring to pray for genetic resilience or a viral counterinsurgency. The remaining chestnuts might thus be given a reprieve to live out their days diseased but at least upright.
I am grateful for the hard work of the Forestry Commission and its tireless team of foresters and scientists, but they are hopelessly overstretched and underresourced for the war they are waging. I described it previously as “a losing game of whack-a-mole”, as every time I have seen people from the commission—and it has been all too rare over the last two years—they have been rushed off their feet dealing with yet another disease outbreak. If the Government are really serious about planting more than 30 million trees each year, they simply have to invest more in border biosecurity, in the commission itself, and in the development of healthy nursery stock. They might also have to restrict public access to woodland to prevent the further spread of disease. Will they do so?
To plant that many trees, we will have to import seedlings and saplings in vast numbers, as we simply cannot generate such stock on this island. That will only increase the likelihood of disease if we do not proactively manage it. We must also decide what to plant. My daughter is here today, and one thing I am determined to avoid is leaving her with either diseased and dying broadleafs of no commercial value, or a barren coniferous monoculture of no ecological value. I am searching for a suitable broadleaf species to replace the chestnut, but simply cannot find anything suitable that can grow in a warming climate that is not at risk from disease or pestilence, particularly squirrels.
In finishing, I would like to offer some warning words from the past on squirrels, as I know it is a favoured subject. Much demonisation is rightly directed to the grey squirrel, but, in their partial defence, I would like to quote a letter we recently unearthed. Written in 1825 by John Wilkinson, it is an agent’s report to the gay, and thus exiled, 3rd Viscount Courtenay:
“The noble range of new plantation at Mellands must be pronounced by everyone who sees it ... as a most striking improvement ... with the exception of the upper part which ... partly from the depredations of our old friends the rabbits is not in so thriving a state ... I was much grieved however to remark the very serious injury done to the Scotch firs by another description of marauders than the rabbits viz the squirrels. There are scores and I may also say hundreds of those firs completely destroyed by these animals which I saw running about in every direction. I did not hesitate to giving the strictest injunctions I could to Wilcox and his brother gamekeeper to destroy them or at least to diminish their numbers.”
Given that this was written 50 years before the introduction of the grey squirrel, these marauders are clearly our native red squirrel. The letter thus reveals that whatever species of squirrel is present requires proactive and determined management to avoid serious pestilence to our native trees. Are the Government prepared for this?
The Earl of Home (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for introducing this debate. It is very timely indeed. I declare an interest in that I am a director of a farming company and a founder member of the National Forest Company, which was set up by that wonderful man Derek Barber.
It was only when I started to look at the various types of diseases that I realised how much Defra was involved in. Is it, perhaps, too widely spread? Should there be a bit more concentration? Or perhaps an easier way would be just to have more money.
I will concentrate on the prevention rather than the cure of these diseases. Several speakers here are much more experienced than I am in looking at these diseases. Yes, we can blame deer for quite a lot of damage in my part of the world; it is only the red deer, and if you get the right red deer and kill that, the trees will not be damaged. People exaggerate the amount of damage that deer do, and by more than one of them.
It is also popular to blame squirrels for a lot of damage that they do to oaks. I saw it myself when the oak trees became about 15 years old and the squirrels ring-barked them very effectively, which eventually killed them. It is, however, possible—but expensive—to eradicate almost all grey squirrels. In fact, it was done in my part of the world, in the south of Scotland, where we got rid of almost all the grey squirrels through a Scottish Government scheme of giving traps and monetary incentives to a group of landowners in the south-east of the country. That did not work, for three reasons. First, there were no reds within easy reach to get to and populate the place, so there was a vacuum. Secondly, it was not possible to import reds from elsewhere, because there was no surplus of reds anywhere. Thirdly, the scheme did not last long enough, so the greys came back in, as the Scottish Government had run out of money. But it can be done. After it finished, it took four years for the middle of the scheme to be reinfected by grey squirrels. So, at some expense, it can work.
The British public on the whole do not realise quite how destructive grey squirrels can be, and it would be helpful if the Government could in some way sponsor programmes and information to educate the person in the street on the harm that they do. Making it illegal to feed squirrels in the same way as was done for pigeons in Trafalgar Square might be considered, although I am not sure that it is practical. It might also be helpful if people knew that grey squirrels are extremely good to eat. I have eaten them but, to my mind, the best place for a grey squirrel is in one cage in London Zoo and nowhere else.
We are never going to stop completely the impact of disease-bearing organisms, so it is essential that we develop trees that are resistant to whatever problem is affecting them. The programme to breed hybrid elms has on the whole been quite successful; there is an avenue of such trees near Windsor racecourse that are so far very healthy. They are only about 10 years old, so we wait with some trepidation to see what happens as they get a bit older. Many splendid organisations are involved as well. Action Oak is supported by both Defra and the Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh Governments, while the Future Trees Trust is doing sterling work on ash dieback, as has already been mentioned, and on whether, through grafting or other methods, some ash trees may be saved, as they have very different DNA themselves.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, mentioned chestnuts. Briefly, on chestnut tree canker, from which I have suffered, there is currently no chemical cure. Work is being done in America, but unfortunately it is not receiving either state or federal support. We ought to consider how we can do that research ourselves here. At home, we have looked at some ways of alleviating the problem of horse chestnut disease. You can do it by cutting out the clumps and leaving only individual trees, and so far it does not seem to have spread more than about 300 yards to any individual trees. That may be worth thinking about.
However, all these are temporary measures and, as other noble Lords have said, I hope that the Government will continue to give great support to those people working on all tree diseases.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on securing this debate. I give due credit to the Library briefing that has been produced. I have learned a great deal already from the contributions that have already been made during the course of this debate, as we have some real experts in this field, unlike me.
Like many of your Lordships, I am a woodland owner, with some acres of mainly broadleaf woodland in Sussex and a little in west Somerset, much of it, I am afraid, bypassed by any sort of modern, post-war management. That causes me a small amount of regret but also in some respects relief at not having had to deal with the changing policies that have occasioned what we have had to deal with.
My early education in trees was, needless to say, at the hands of my father, who was a lifelong military man. He said that there were two sorts of trees in the military vocabulary: one was called a fir and the other a bushy top. As a cheeky youngster, I pointed to a mature Scots pine and said, “What’s that?” and was told to shut up.
I will devote my comments to ash dieback—Chalara fraxinea. It is a substantial component of my own woodlands, and that, along with grey squirrels and the predation of at least three species of deer, are the chief problems we face. Trying to spot the early signs of infection is a real art, and I have consulted a number of experts on this. Every tree tells its own tale of the habitat it occupies, the availability of nutrients, the consistency of water supply, competition through overcrowding, the beneficial fungi and detrimental ones, not to mention the birds and bugs. So, spotting an ash tree where crown growth is starting to die back and become what my tree surgeon refers to as “clumpy”, and distinguishing that from a natural style of growth because of the circumstances in which the tree is growing is a difficult task. I therefore welcome the developments in identifying resistant specimens, wish that a speedy rollout, and hope that that can be readily used in a cost-effective manner in the field.
I note that various estimates have been made of the number of ash trees at risk. When I asked the forestry consultant for the Exmoor National Park, he said, “Our working assumption is 95% of the ash population lost”, and I have heard that elsewhere. However, the immediate existential danger posed by this disease is the biggest worry: as the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, pointed out, the increased brittleness of the tree structure as the disease progresses, the dangers of sudden limb fall and the propensity to spontaneous fracture during felling lead to a form of Venn-diagram approach in which intersecting circles of risk link the trees not only to public rights of way and highways but to railways, power lines, buildings, homes, watercourses, fences and livestock. On steep and fragile slopes such as those I used to encounter on Exmoor, tree work may involve other risks, one recent instance tragically taking the life of a young man close to where I used to farm. I do not see massive harvesting machines as the answer either, let alone on steep slopes. I have seen the results of their use in damage to soils and the sheer wreckage that accompanies what is left behind. I could not bear to see my bluebell woods suffer that fate. Therefore, time-consuming and expensive selective felling remains the only option.
Such considerations also affect charities, public and local authorities as well as private owners. In areas where public access is tolerated, even if it is not exercised as of right, these risks are highly relevant. My involvement with the Rights of Way Review Committee tells me that the public expect their rural leisure walks to be risk free. However, increasingly, that cannot always be guaranteed, and seemingly to erect warning notices is knowingly to admit to an identifiable danger. To let trees fall down on their own, even where it is ostensibly safe to do so, presents its own hazards, as those who had to deal with the outcomes of the 1987 storm and the higgledy-piggledy, dangerous heaps of tangled trees would well understand. So it is not surprising that removing risks wherever possible may involve felling trees that might survive the disease. I hope that the Government have that in focus.
Although the loss of so many fine trees is a sadness, I also see it as an opportunity, in my case for creating a more species-diverse woodland. I echo the points made by other noble Lords about the need for a degree of flexibility and inventiveness on this. I am no climate scientist, but I understand that planting more trees is one way of fixing CO2. I hope that, for non-durable timber such as ash, we can do slightly better than leaving the butts to lie and rot or be burnt in biomass generators, and find long-term uses, such as in construction. However, I acknowledge the benefit of ash logs as a fuel in my domestic wood-burner.
My final point has been made by other noble Lords and it is this. Woodland management and regeneration as a result of disease and pests are very costly and long-term exercises. As others have said, I too am at an age where I am, more than ever, aware that what I do to woodland is for future generations and not for my purposes. But there needs to be a stable, long-term public and fiscal policy towards woodland ownership and management, so that investment works and future owners do not face the conundrum that caused my forebears to fell some of the best and largest trees to defray estate duty or to raise working capital depleted by taxation. Here I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, in thinking that there needs to be a better look at how taxation works. We need smarter ways of working.
I have one comment on grey squirrels to pass to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull: they seem to like sycamores. They love the sugars in their bark. I wonder whether one could plant them as a sort of natural bait to try to round up the little pesky blighters. I look forward to what the Minister says with great interest.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, after the wonderful introduction by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and all the excellent contributions since then, covering the range of problems we are facing, there is not a great deal more for me to say, but I will do my best. Trees are at last getting the recognition they deserve, and money to plant many more is being promised. It is vital that this money is spent wisely and that urgent consideration is given to how we plant, how we look after our existing tree stock and—the subject of today’s debate—how we keep out of our country those pests and diseases that threaten to devastate our present tree population.
When planting, it is important to plant the right species, at the right height, in the right place, bearing in mind such things as soil type, location, et cetera. It is crucial to allow money for proper aftercare and to make sure it is carried out. All too often, money, time and effort are wasted by well-meaning planters thinking planted trees will look after themselves, leading to widespread failure and expensive replanting. It is important too that we appreciate the huge value of the mature trees we already have. They contribute enormously to our lives and well-being, are hard, take many years to replace, and in some cases are irreplaceable. Sadly, HS2 will do great damage, not least to our 108 truly irreplaceable ancient woodlands.
It is important to recognise and make full use of the expertise in tree care provided by organisations such as the Arboricultural Association. It trains and sets standards for tree surgeons, is involved in every aspect of tree planting and maintenance, and has its finger on the pulse of tree health in this country like no other organisation. But nothing is more important or calls for more urgent action than the topic of today’s debate.
For a long time, I have been urging the Government to be much tougher on the importation of trees and to do more to raise public awareness of the dangers of bringing in plant material from abroad—including, I am afraid, fir-cones. We have not done enough. The average holidaymaker would still not think twice about bringing home a plant from a continental holiday. We must seriously crank up the awareness campaign, not just at ports of entry but nationally. Most important of all, we must urgently crack down on the importation of trees. I am grateful to the Woodland Trust, not just for its excellent briefing for today’s debate but for all the work it is putting in to protect our trees and for being the first organisation to commit to planting only homegrown stock.
The situation is dire. The list of tree diseases we have queuing up to invade is frightening. The Government themselves identify 127 high-risk pests and diseases that could have a major impact on our woodlands. I cannot and will not attempt to list all the pests and diseases that are trying to get into this country, but will name one or two. The bacterium Xylella fastidiosa is marching towards us from Italy and can infect a whole range of our trees. The fungal disease plane wilt is devastating plane trees in France. Can we imagine London and other cities without their plane trees? Emerald ash borer is doing much damage in the United States, and is a real and frightening threat to us.
Then we have the sad saga of the oak processionary moth. Have we learned nothing from Dutch elm disease and ash dieback, both imported from abroad? I had understood that oak processionary moth was present in London boroughs and perhaps nearby counties, but was not yet a major problem and was probably controllable. I will read out two Questions I tabled last July and the Answers I received. The first Question was
“what instances of the importation of oak processionary moth on oak trees have occurred in the last 12 months”?
The Answer was this:
“The unprecedented expansion of oak processionary moth (OPM) on the continent has led to intercepts of OPM on oak trees imported from ten nurseries in the Netherlands and one nursery in Germany”.
The other Question I asked was
“in how many locations, and on what dates, oak processionary moths have been identified in the UK”.
This was the Answer:
“The Plant Health Service has intercepted oak processionary moth on oak trees at 58 sites within the UK Protected Zone … The infested oak trees have all been recently imported from the continent. The intercept sites are in the counties and regions of Bedfordshire, Birmingham, Cambridgeshire, County Durham, Devon, Dorset, Essex, Fife, Flintshire, Glamorgan, Gloucestershire, Greater Manchester, Hampshire, Invernesshire, Kent, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Staffordshire, Suffolk, Warwickshire, West Midlands, Wiltshire and Yorkshire.”
This is unforgivable. We have done the moth’s job for it. It does not have to spread its wings and fly to infect our trees; we do it for it.
Our system is not working. At best, it could be described as alert and reactive. I call it a sitting duck. Our watchwords should be: aggressively protective. We are an island and we should take advantage of it. Leaving the EU is a golden opportunity to make our own rules and better protect our trees. We must place a total ban on all oak imports regardless of their size. We should look urgently at the possibility of banning other dangerous species, such as olive, lavender and prunus. We should consider introducing a quarantine system for all imported trees. An urgent meeting should be held with everyone involved in growing trees in the UK to see how, and how quickly, we can become more self-sufficient. Everyone in the tree business knows the problems and is keen to help. The Royal Horticultural Society is holding a major garden exhibit at this year’s Chelsea show to mark the International Year of Plant Health.
Finally, the measures I have suggested may sound draconian, but I really believe that nothing less will do. We cannot afford to delay and we cannot afford not to be tough enough. The ash trees dying by our road- sides are a constant reminder of the price of failure.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his lyrical introduction to this debate and for the initiative shown by him and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in securing it.
I will begin with a sentence from the Royal Horti- cultural Society website:
“Importing plants poses potential risks of introducing new pests and diseases.”
Much of the debate has focused on the actions of individuals. The noble and learned Lord began by referring to his pine cone. Perhaps he missed the Government’s Don’t Risk It! campaign, which involved posters at ports and airports. But as the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, has just outlined, the real risk is actually from commercial imports. Individual actions form a tiny part of the problem and there is a risk that if we focus on those actions we will engage in displacement activity rather than focusing on the real problem.
Forestry Commission figures show that the plant trade has doubled over the last 10 years. In the past decade, the number of diseases brought in is the same as the number brought in over the previous 50 years, so it is rising five times as quickly. The UK Plant Health Risk Register lists five to 10 new pests and diseases every month. Any scientist will tell you that correlation is not causation, but the links are clear and well evidenced. This is globalisation in action: a change in our systems embarked upon with scant consideration for the impacts. A few people have made very large profits while the rest of us have paid.
We are inevitably going to see an increase in plant and tree pests and diseases because we are in a climate emergency. The changing weather conditions will enable pests and diseases to flourish which could not get a hold before. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, birds will fly around and that is the sort of thing we cannot do anything about except to be vigilant, but we can act by changing the system of how we secure our plant supplies. I say plants rather than simply trees because many noble Lords have talked about Xylella, which poses a risk across a wide variety of plants. We are also seeing huge imports of indoor plants and even cut flowers which present a risk to our native ecosystems. In 2017, those imports were worth £975 million a year. I have a direct question for the Minister: we will soon see the Government’s food strategy, so surely it is time for a horticulture strategy. We have been talking about tree nurseries, but the issue goes more broadly in terms of fruit and vegetable production. Should that not be tied in with the food strategy as well?
The fact is that a lot of the imports of trees and other plants are from the Netherlands. It set up a co-ordinated government strategy to develop its horticulture industry. I too have met some horticultural food producers in the UK who also focused on the fact that they are finding it very difficult to get finance from our banks, while banks on the continent are prepared to fund horticultural industries, which is something else to look at in the policy area.
If I were to offer the Minister some thoughts about what a horticultural strategy might look like, I would point him to the Government’s own words about their agriculture strategy and agroecology. That means working with nature and not relying on giant industrial monocultures. If we are thinking about a British tree nursery industry, what we will need is diverse small-scale holdings made up of independent businesses and co-operatives that are scattered around the country, which will help produce a more diverse stock. When I tweeted about this debate before it began, the Bristol Tree Forum came back to me asking me to stress the importance for their health of the genetic diversity of the stocks that we plant, and I am very pleased to do that. It is what we need to ensure healthy woodlands and trees.
How do we create those small, independent businesses? There is perhaps a model in the One Wales: One Planet development strategy, which allows small businesses access to land. I suggest to noble Lords that we also need to look at land reform in England to enable people to access land in order to set up small, independent tree nurseries. Another way in which the Government might act was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes: government procurement. We have seen progress on this already, but not far from where I am standing now, the Florida fig trees in Portcullis House are an example of how government procurement traditionally has not done what it should have done to support local industry.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the need to protect woodlands from pests which are already here. Again, we should think about the agroecological approach. Reference has been made to grey squirrels. We know that supporting the spread of pine martens will help red squirrels compete against grey squirrels. Also—dare I say?—if we are thinking about deer, perhaps we should also be thinking about reintroducing the lynx as a natural control mechanism. I am talking, of course, about the rewilding of the UK. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, “Copy nature and you will succeed”, and that is essentially the agroecological approach.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, referred to the heavily overstretched Forestry Commission staff and the amount of work they have to do. At the end of last year, Friends of the Earth produced a report showing that overall, the UK Government were spending less than £1 per person per year on trees, including the work of the Forestry Commission. We hear much talk of the end of austerity, so I ask the Minister whether we can expect to see a significant boost to the budget of the Forestry Commission to deal with all the threats that have been so clearly outlined today.
The Library briefing, which other noble Lords have cited, refers to the need for common frameworks for working with the devolved Administrations. We also need to see close co-operation with our European neighbours on tackling many of these pests and diseases: a co-operative approach to ensure that they are held back. I hope very much that we will see the kind of diplomatic environment which allows that to continue.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I would like to add my compliments to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for securing the debate and for its excellent introduction. I declare myself the owner of a forestry among farming operations, as set out in the register. After almost 20 speeches, there is probably not much left to be said, so my speech is considerably shorter than it was, particularly as I am not an expert on tree diseases. However, I feel strongly that the system of controls and intervention where disease is known is not working in the area I know, which is Scotland. I appreciate that it falls within the area of the devolved Administration, but there is a lesson here.
We are being encouraged to plant more trees both in our towns and in the countryside for amenity and for commerce. Self-sufficiency in commercial timber is good and sound. Help from the Woodland Trust and through tax reliefs is welcome and probably essential if the private sector, many voluntary organisations are others are to continue their good work. However, costs are rising. Planting the trees, fencing, road building for commercial forestry, attempts at immunisation of new tree whips—which is hugely controversial—and fighting tree diseases and pests by treating every single tree are terribly expensive. Harvesting costs are rising; there are weight restrictions on roads for haulage from remote locations. Of course, a commercial forestry sells the timber and prices rise too, but—as we have already heard today—a glut can happen quickly and unexpectedly, and market fluctuations affect the price of the timber. Many of the costs do not go down.
My point—the one I want us in England to learn from —is really one of fairness. One of the main diseases in Scotland is phytophthora ramorum, which affects the European larch population. From the helpful Library briefing I discovered that it is not native but has become naturalised; that is my claim to refer to it. There was little briefing or explanation before the dramatic enforcement controls were introduced to take on and try to prevent the spread of phytophthora. The enforcing authority was Forestry Commission Scotland. It had legal powers to enforce felling, together with unaffected trees, with limited compensation. Yet some two years ago—in Galloway, I believe—a large Forestry Commission Scotland block of affected larch was exempted. I never received a satisfactory explanation for this. I tried; I spoke to the Forestry Commission.
That exclusion block is the entry point of the prevailing south-westerly winds into Scotland. This seems inexplicable to me, as phytophthora is recognised as probably an airborne disease. The Forestry Commission has the ability to instigate criminal proceedings, yet exempts itself. Is this fair? Is this how a government agency should behave? The Forestry Commission must spend hundreds of thousands of pounds flying helicopters to identify single trees to thereafter issue enforcement notices, yet it bypasses its own large block of infected trees. Those I know and the countless others similarly affected deserve an explanation and more help. Surely in this case it would be more productive if the policing authority worked with the private sector in a dialogue, together addressing the challenges, towards a solution.
I am not taking part in this debate to moan but asking for fairness. I hope the mistakes there can be avoided here in England. There should be more financial help to off-set the cost of compliance, with measures to control the spread of the terrible diseases we have heard about. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, said, financial support for nurseries is an excellent idea, to continue to grow and develop our own home-sourced stock and reduce the dependence on imported young trees.
Finally, I ask the Minister for an assurance that co-operation between all stakeholders in this area will occur as the nation addresses solutions to the growing list of tree diseases—not a repeat of the heavy-handed approach in the north that I have described.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I still have my PG Tips book of British trees—50 cards painstakingly plucked from individual tea packets and glued into my album. Sadly, I no longer have my I-Spy books to use with my grandchildren but, if I did, I warrant that it would take longer to spot the individual varieties of British trees than it took me, begging family and neighbours, to put together my PG Tips book of trees in the first place.
Part of our post-war history is how bad we have been on trees. I cite as reference the comments of Alfred Wainwright in relation to Ennerdale on the western fells of the Lake District, where one can sit on the bench outside Black Sail youth hostel—the most spectacular view in all of England, but for many decades blighted by monolithic planting of just one type of tree, with no thought to the rest of the consequential environment.
On former coalfield sites, the same error has been made in more recent times: cheap and cheerful, monolithic planting attempting purely to cover the spoil rather than to fertilise the environment. I have heard and learned great wisdom today in this Chamber. As the Government go forward with their objective of huge and wide-scale tree planting, I hope they use variety and move away from the monolithic, combining the varieties available—perhaps using that PG Tips book as a good barometer—and enhancing the landscape.
I declare something of an interest, for I have lived for many years on the fringes of what is, in reality, still Sherwood Forest. There is no finer place. There is a model there, one I have promoted before, of recreating Sherwood Forest, not as a bureaucracy with big, new buildings and lots of state employees managing some kind of body, but as a planning entity. It is creating a boundary—a border defining Sherwood Forest. It would create a model of how we can designate certain areas as favoured areas for investment, with the expectation of high-quality tree planting. I recommend that to government, but it needs something even more revolutionary, which government already has.
Neighbourhood planning, first envisaged in 2003, has taken off greatly in the last decade. I hear that the district of Bassetlaw has a higher percentage of its land acreage under neighbourhood plans than anywhere else in the country. From listening to neighbours and others—and once, in a former life, constituents—I can say that what that means is that local people have control over the planning process. The local authority is required to work to the locally micro-defined needs. The weakness in the strategy is not how it is generally applied by government, for it is a brilliant strategy. However, the guidance and expertise provided in a village such as mine have gone into the nth degree about what kind of bricks should be used, what combination of looks there should be, what kind of tiles should be on the roofs and how road and path layouts should be—very important issues, to my mind. The more advanced might include cycleways. But lacking within it is the question not of green space but of what kind of green.
The Government could write and issue effective guidance to be used by local authorities and taken at the neighbourhood planning level to give ownership at the local level, where people want to see that variety. It could allow, for example, a planning authority to say, “If you want to build an extension, build an extension, but you should plant a number of trees as well alongside it. Here’s the spec of trees that should be planted.” If someone is going to build a warehouse, which seem to get larger, taller and wider by the minute, there should be not some nasty, cheap, cheerful, minuscule set of trees alongside it that mask it and contribute to nothing but an excuse factor for the developer and the owner of the site, but trees that have been properly thought out. It should not stop development, but complement it. That is a power not only to designate areas such as Sherwood Forest, in co-operation with local authorities and without costing the state and the taxpayer money or employing bureaucracy, but to shift that power, as is already happening in a widespread and successful way with neighbourhood planning, and building it into the green environment.
What I predict will happen from there is that communities would say that they would rather have the traditional varieties—the colour, shape, feel, and the noise of birds and decent wildlife that we wish to see. That could be done for free for the taxpayer in most cases, simply by using the planning system coherently. Plenty of new Ministers seem to be being appointed around the place today—I hope no problems have or will come to the Front Bench—and if the Government want a slogan, the people will go with “British trees for British woodlands”, “British trees for British villages” or “British trees for British towns and cities”. The powers are there. I hope that will be taken forward with other government departments.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, it is privilege to follow so many experts on this subject. I cannot claim to have the sort of level of expertise that we have heard. It is also difficult, at this stage of the debate, to say anything new, but there are points that bear reinforcement. I hope your Lordships will bear with me.
I start by declaring my interest as a farmer in south-west Scotland, very close to the block of forestry that my noble friend Lord Thurlow referred to. The farm includes woodland, ranging from native trees to commercial conifers. I am currently experiencing the heartbreaking sight of most of the many ash trees on the farm slowly dying. The smaller ones have almost all gone already and the larger ones mostly show signs of sickness. We have already lost the few larches that we had and, rather depressingly, we saw our first grey squirrel two years ago.
My children have never seen an elm; they are only a very distant memory for me. But we are now in danger of losing many of the other iconic species of native trees: the oak, the ash, the Scots pine, the juniper and the slightly less native horse and sweet chestnuts all face threats, as we have heard. That we failed to learn the lessons from Dutch elm disease and allowed ourselves to get into the situation we now find ourselves in is an entirely foreseeable and avoidable tragedy. We live on an island, with all the natural biosecurity advantages that gives. Yet despite this, virtually every threat our trees face has come from abroad, generally through the import of contaminated plants, saplings or wood products, including packaging. Even ash dieback, which, as we have heard, is partly windblown, might well have come in through imported trees. We had huge imports of ash up to 2012.
Other horrors, such as the Asian long-horned beetle and the rather beautiful sounding emerald ash borer beetle, are imminent threats. The Asian long-horned beetle was caught just in time in Kent a few years back after being imported from China on wood packaging for roof slates. Xylella has jumped across from the Americas and has so far been detected in France, Spain, Italy and Portugal. It has been caught in Germany for the time being, but it is still there. It threatens a whole range of trees, as we have heard.
The sad truth is that, like the elm, it is probably too late for the ash. Even if small numbers prove immune, it will take generations to replant and replace the trees we have lost. Surely it really is now time to learn the lessons and tighten up biosecurity before we lose any more trees. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hope pointed out so eloquently, we should follow the example of Australia and New Zealand.
I am sure the Minister will point out that we already have processes around the import of plant products, but it is clear that they have not worked. This is especially important given the Government’s desire to plant billions of trees to counteract climate change. Where will they come from? Can we ensure that they are grown here and not contaminated with yet further diseases or pests? It would be a terrible irony if the laudable aim of planting more trees resulted in the loss of yet more species.
We have had references to Scotland. Forestry is a devolved matter. Here I am making a new point, which is quite good for 18 speakers in. There is a risk that divergent practices between the nations of the UK might increase biosecurity risks, so it is critical that the various devolved authorities and the UK Government work closely together and that a framework around phytosanitary and biosecurity arrangements is agreed and followed.
I add my voice to those of noble Lords who have asked how the Government propose to help woodland owners afflicted by these diseases and pests. The loss of the trees, with all the attendant financial costs, not just loss of commercial woodland but the incredible cost of dealing with dead trees—we have heard about the issues with ash trees—is not the fault of the owners. The fault lies clearly at the door of those who allowed these diseases and pests into the country through lax biosecurity: Governments of all colours over many decades. Will the Government help to compensate owners for these losses? There is help for replanting, but that is a minor part of it.
With all these new diseases and pests taking hold, it is extraordinary that Forest Research charges fees for its diagnostic and identification services. Will the Minister consider removing these charges? Charging fees must act as a disincentive for people to provide samples for investigation.
We have lost the elm and we are losing the ash. I would hate for the next generation never to see an oak or a Scots pine. It really is high time that we took real action to prevent the loss of future species.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I want to take this opportunity to make two points. First, I do not think any noble Lord has mentioned Fera Science Ltd, the national agri-food innovation campus at Sand Hutton, which played a very special role in the scenario when ash dieback broke out. It is trying to find, first and foremost, a formula to prevent the spread of ash dieback, but also some way to immunise trees, as has been the case in Denmark. I am particularly concerned that we are exporting ash seeds to reimport them from countries such as Denmark, Poland and others that already had ash dieback in the trees. I hope that we can learn from that.
The only other thing that I would like to say is that many have spoken on the range of pests and diseases, and on rodents such as squirrels, muntjacs and others. Rather than protecting these species for ever, is there not a case for bringing in a review every five, 10 or 15 years?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, we have had a very wide-ranging debate, in preparation for which extensive briefings were circulated on the threats posed to our native woodlands. By the time I had read my way through to the briefing from the Woodland Trust, I was completely depressed at the scale of the problem, and at the lack of action to alleviate and tackle it.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, eloquently gave us a scenario of the effects of the disease on large estates. The number of species of true native trees is quite small; only nine, with another 10 being non-native but brought to the UK by humans over an 8,000-year period. We are all used to these species. They are not rare or exotic, but form part of the everyday landscape we see in cities, ornamental gardens and parks throughout the country: the ash, blackthorn, beech, oak, scots pine and yew, alongside the field elm, horse chestnut, larch and sycamore. We take their presence for granted, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, reminded us of the historic use of wood from these trees.
All our trees are under attack from a variety of sources. Some will show signs of attack early on, others will take four to six years before it is obvious that something is seriously wrong and the tree is in decline and dying. As the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, said, the Government’s own risk register contains some 127 different pests and diseases which could wreak havoc in our woodlands. Easily identified pests are the grey squirrel and the muntjac deer. Both creatures have devastating effects, stripping bark, especially from immature trees. Their numbers have reached proportions where they appear to be totally out of control, but this should not deter the Government and forestry managers from taking action to control and reduce their numbers. Given the recent demise of the deer initiative, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, what new strategy do the Government propose to lead the wildlife management sector in England and Wales?
Other pests come in the form of insects and beetles, which lay their eggs in trees. Their larvae then feed on the wood of living trees and can eventually kill the host tree. My noble friend Lady Kramer, who is unable to be here today, has pressed me to mention the oak processionary moth. I feel that I do not need to, given the number of noble Lords who have raised it, but I promised her I would. This moth was the subject of debate in the Kew Gardens Bill and in statutory instruments last year. The moths make large nests for their caterpillars which then defoliate the tree. The caterpillar’s hairs cause breathing difficulties and skin irritations to anyone touching them. Removing nests by hand is challenging and expensive for landowners with large oak trees in open parklands and a high number of visitors. As with many introduced pests, the management cost is borne by the landowner rather than the nursery or importer who introduced the infested trees.
My noble friend Lady Kramer tells me that Richmond Park spends more than £100,000 a year eliminating moth pests to keep the public safe. This is a considerable cost which landowners of parkland must bear, to protect and preserve their ancient trees, which are held in such high regard by the public.
The third category of pest and disease is spore-based fungi, pathogens and viruses. Into this category come powdery mildew, red-band needle blight, sweet-chestnut blight and the massaria disease of plane trees. Many but not all these pests and diseases are notifiable. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect is devastating. As we have heard, the figures are stark. We have lost 60 million trees to Dutch elm disease. Up to 95% of ash trees may be lost to ash dieback, as so eloquently mentioned by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harris of Pentregarth, and 13% of the UK’s total land area comprises woodland. The total monetised value of UK trees is estimated at over £4.9 billion a year and the total asset value of UK trees at over £175 billion.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans reminded us of the important benefits of planting new forests. Many noble Lords have mentioned the Government’s Tree Health Resilience Strategy 2018, which sets out an assessment of the importance of the UK’s trees, woods and forests. It includes benefits to health and well-being that are important to us all, opportunities for recreation and the ability to sequester carbon. This last point is crucial as we struggle with air pollution in our cities.
Despite this resilience strategy, government figures for the year to March 2019 show that tree planting in England fell 71% short of targets, which questions how committed the Government are to fulfilling their own targets. Alongside this, the Government have committed to planting 30 million trees a year to help redress the loss of mature trees. Can the Minister update us on how the Government and the sector are progressing with their objectives from May 2018?
There are a number of serious pathogens present in Europe which could make their way to the UK. We heard about the bacteria xylella fastidiosa, which could affect many native broadleaf trees and ornamental plant species. One simple precaution to lower the risk of disease introduction would be to ban the importation of the high-risk hosts, including olive, lavender and prunus species. Are the Government considering such a ban?
All contributions across the House appear to be in agreement. Clearly, the most cost-effective way to manage pests, diseases and invasive species is to prevent their introduction in the first instance by dramatically improving biosecurity at our borders. For this reason, the Woodland Trust operates a UK-sourced and grown assurance scheme which ensures that none of the trees it plants or sells are imported, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, mentioned. Will the Government commit to increasing the proportion of UK and Ireland-sourced and grown trees that they plant? I was very interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on how this might be tied in with neighbourhood planning.
I turn now to some of the solutions that are available to alleviate the loss of our trees. It is not right, morally or financially, for landowners alone to pay the cost. If stock brought from nurseries proves to be infected, the nursery or supplier should pay the cost of dealing with eradicating the pests that they have passed on. During our debates last year, the Minister was adamant that all poinsettias sold in this country would come from pest-free environments and have a plant health passport attached. This was indeed the case; I checked. While a poinsettia is not an oak sapling, there are ways to transfer such a plant health passport to our precious native trees; the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to that.
Globalisation has negatively impacted many of our native trees. If sufficient resources are not invested in plant health and monitoring of imported timbers, catastrophic pest and disease events may follow. This would affect the carbon sequestration of UK forests, with serious consequences. I urge the Government to tackle this issue.
The grey squirrel damage affects many tree species, reducing the economic functionality of forests to zero and reducing CO2 sequestration. Many noble Lords have referred to the grey squirrel. Focusing on grey squirrel population control will allow a greater variety and resilience of forests and woodlands, and having better intelligence on what is being imported means that we can take steps to prevent disease arriving here.
There are technological solutions to diseases of trees, most notably the oak. Are the Government considering investing in such solutions? We know from our debates on Kew Gardens that long-term scientific research is invaluable. Investing in science and research will reap future benefits, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes.
Lastly, there needs to be much stronger support for tree breeding for resilience. This will enable our native species to withstand attack from the myriad pests and diseases invading our shores. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for tabling this debate; for setting out so eloquently the challenges facing our prized and loved native woodlands; and for sharing his salutary lesson about the travelling pine cone, which we all took to heart. Noble Lords have contributed a wealth of knowledge to the debate and the Minister has done more than most to raise awareness of the dangers of invasive pests and diseases. The challenge is whether we should be doing more.
I declare an interest as the chair of Rothamsted Enterprises—a part of the world-renowned agriculture research institute—which is working on these issues, including the medicinal benefit of trees, to which the right reverend Prelate referred.
During the course of the debate, all noble Lords have given vivid descriptions of the problems we face. More tree pests and diseases have arrived in Britain in the past 40 years than at any time before then. Noble Lords have spoken passionately about the impact of ash dieback and chestnut blight on their localities and landscape, and species of oak, Scots pine, beech and birch are all at risk from invasive bugs, fungi and bacteria, some of which are already here while others are expected at any time soon.
Noble Lords have also highlighted the particular impact of grey squirrels and have described some novel proposals for their eradication. However, one thing is clear—we need a scientific and humane initiative if we are to control their spread.
There is a concern that our native forests could suffer a similar fate to woodlands in the US, where vast swathes of woodland have been wiped out by invasive species. It comes months after the damaging fires which raged in the Amazon rainforest and in parts of Australia, reminding us all too starkly of the vital role trees play in offsetting global warming and supporting biodiversity. We cannot afford to continue losing vast sections of the Amazon rainforest and the crucial role it plays as a carbon sink; and we cannot afford to lose the UK woodlands and their own contribution to achieving our carbon budgets, a point made by a number of noble Lords.
This is why we support the Government’s ambition to plant 11 million trees, even if it fell—pun intended—short of the commitment in my own party’s recent manifesto, to which noble Lords referred. For every tree that dies as a result of invasive pests and diseases, the challenge to meet that planting target—which is already behind schedule—becomes even harder. The cost of dealing with the clear-up of diseased and dying trees adds further economic burdens, with estimates of the impact of ash dieback alone as high as £15 billion.
We are all familiar with the causes of the problem which your Lordships have highlighted today. Global warming is having a huge impact because insects which previously have been killed in harsh winter months are now breeding more than once a year, and our warmer climate is becoming a magnet for new pests which had previously been unable to thrive in the UK. At the same time, the rise in globalised trade of live plants, combined with the impact of travellers often unwittingly hosting pests which hitch a free ride on to our shores, remains a huge challenge.
As noble Lords have made clear, humans bear a major responsibility in this. International travel fuels a taste for exotic plants, and the commercial pressures to feed that demand often outweigh the wider concerns about the impact on our native species. Sometimes the causes can be more mundane but deadly: for example, the use of wooden crates—a perfect vehicle for hungry pests looking for a new home—to transport goods all round the world.
So, what is being done about this challenge? I said at the outset that Defra seems to have a sensible strategy and I am sure the Minister will tell us more about it. The tree health resilience strategy sets out a helpful action plan for combining international collaboration, awareness raising and training with tighter surveillance and controls. However, arguably it lacks the urgency, targets and funding that many noble Lords are demanding today.
I was interested to read an interview with Nicola Spence, the UK’s Chief Plant Health Officer, last year. She described the sterling work by inspectors at the ports and airports—often assisted by sniffer dogs—who are trying to ensure that any wood being imported has been treated and is free from invasive pests and diseases. She emphasised the points that noble Lords have made about the need for better communication and vigilance to ensure that citizens take these issues seriously when travelling abroad. She also outlined the campaign taking place to educate travellers about the threats. However, she also rightly stressed the need for more research into prevention and cure. This could enable us—as we are seeing with the planting project in Hampshire—to develop genetically modified pest-resistant trees, as well as the natural microbes which could be enlisted to fight the diseases. Science is key. Can the Minister give an update on how much extra funding is being provided for this critical research and what are the timeframes for the outcomes to be implemented?
At the same time, it was clear that planting more diverse native woodlands with mixed stands of trees rather than relying on a commercial monoculture of tree planting is crucial, again a point made by a number of noble Lords. Can the Minister clarify what steps are being taken to ensure that commercial growers abandon single-species forests and focus on developing more native and resilient habitats instead?
I agree with many noble Lords that we need to focus on planting home-grown saplings and—a noble Baroness made this point—that we need to get on with placing those orders now because, if we are to meet the target of the number of trees we are planning to grow, it will take time to ensure that those orders come online.
I agree that we need better labelling of the country of origin, backed up by proper and respected assurance schemes. I am taken by the suggestion that we could do more to hold nurseries to account. A number of noble Lords referred to ordering from respected and respectable nurseries but then finding that the stock that arrived was not fit for purpose.
I have reached this point without raising the most urgent issue—the impact on our biosecurity of leaving the EU. This issue was dealt with in the debate last May on the excellent EU Committee paper on plant and animal biosecurity. We have now ceased to be a member state and the Prime Minister has taken every opportunity to restate his determination for the implementation period to end in December even if agreements have not been struck. However, the tree health resilience strategy has at its heart the need for international collaboration and the sharing of research data. We cannot afford to fight this threat alone.
When we have debated these issues before, the Minister has responded that continued involvement in the key EU agencies remains a goal. It is now crunch time: we are out and the clock is ticking. We need to know what will be in place on 1 January 2021. Can the Minister confirm whether the UK wants to continue fully participating in the EU pest and disease notifications systems beyond the implementation period? For example, will David Frost and his team be requesting access to the European alien species notification list beyond December? What contingency plans will be in place if this is not resolved?
Can the Minister confirm that the UK replacement of the EU TRACES system and that IPAFFS will be fully functioning next January? Can he clarify for how long UK laboratories and research institutes will continue to have their EU-derived funding guaranteed? What is the longer-term planning in relation to UK participation in Horizon Europe and other funding sources? Can he give a guarantee that biosecurity inspectors at the ports and airports will continue to carry out their crucial functions unhindered by the need for a new raft of other inspections of goods being imported?
These are huge challenges but we have these issues within our grasp. I look forward to the Minister’s response and what he has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my membership of the International Dendrology Society and my farming interests. I have planted a few trees and have seen them, particularly the jubilee copse I planted in 2012, suffer from grey squirrel damage.
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for securing, at last, this important debate, and to all noble Lords who have contributed. I can say with assurance after reviewing the speakers’ list that the expertise your Lordships bring to this debate can surely not be surpassed in any other legislative Chamber in the world.
While it is a privilege to be Biosecurity Minister, I am constantly concerned about the matter. I cannot stress enough the importance I place on keeping our country safe from all invasive species, pests and diseases which present a threat to our trees and plants.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked whether we should be doing more. My answer is a resounding yes, which I shall expand on during this debate. Whatever our view on leaving the European Union, I see it as an opportunity for us to heighten our biosecurity. It is an issue that we discussed when I gave evidence. One of the opportunities is that we are going to be able to act faster than we have during our membership.
There are so many ways in which our plants and trees are vital natural capital. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, spoke about our ecosystem, and other noble Lords spoke about the history of our country. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans spoke about healing powers and green prescriptions, and my noble friend Lady Byford spoke of inspirational work in the national forest.
Tree planting is fundamental to reducing net emissions and responding to climate change. We are committed to increasing planting across the UK to 30,000 hectares per year by 2025. Supported by our nature for climate fund, we will overhaul our approach to tree planting and in the spring we will launch our consultation on the English tree strategy. Our proposals for environmental land management will be one of the most important environmental reforms for 40 years. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on his speech, in particular his reference to the net gain in having development that communities choose, in working with developers and in those developments enhancing the environment rather than detracting from it.
Biosecurity needs to be at the heart of all our plans for environmental improvement, so we can do all we can to protect our trees. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Mann, and my noble friend Lord Caithness that there have been mistakes in the past. We must address them. We also need to improve variety and the quality of woodland management. Indeed, it is important that we think of our responsibility for the management of the countryside.
My noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke of deer management. It is right that the responsibility for deer on private land lies with individual landowners, who are encouraged to participate in local deer management groups where deer are causing damage. There is also support for deer management under the countryside stewardship scheme, which provides funding for deer management plans and capital items, such as high seats. Forestry England has a programme for deer management across the entire public forest estate. I think we all recognise that more needs to be done.
This year is an incredibly commanding year for plant health as it is designated the United Nations International Year of Plant Health. This is a major opportunity to raise awareness and strengthen biosecurity further. Defra’s Chief Plant Health Officer and I will be playing a full role in the UK’s contribution.
On the sourcing of trees, we support the Grown in Britain agenda. Indeed, 90% of trees planted in a forestry setting by Forestry England are UK grown, and that has been the position for the past three years. Initiatives which increase domestic production to grow ever more trees and plants in this country are warmly to be welcomed. Tree planting and UK production will be supported by the nature for climate fund and our forthcoming tree strategy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned trade. Easier global travel and trade mean there is now greater diversity of plants and plant products entering the UK than ever before. We trade 22 million tonnes of plant products every year, worth around £14 billion. I hear the calls to prohibit this trade, but we have to recognise—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, raised this—that that would not always be the silver bullet. The biogeography of the British Isles means that some invasive pests and diseases cross the channel unassisted in the air, as happened with ash dieback, particularly in the eastern counties, although I do not deny that we have made some grave errors which we are now having to cope with.
I agree with a number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Framlingham and Lady Fookes, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, that we need to work on increasing capacity and capability in our nurseries to meet demand. Increasing domestic production and growing ever more trees and plants in this country is essential. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that we need to think about this in the whole system of plants as well as trees. They go together.
Wherever trees are sourced, be it at home or abroad, we must place the strongest emphasis on biosecurity, a point made by my noble friend Lady Byford. At border entry points and nurseries, our officials are on the front line and are targeting their inspections on the highest risk plants and plant products. The Government invest more than £30 million per year in our plant health service. Our inspectors conduct more than 46,600 physical checks per year of high-risk consignments imported from across the world, and they are highly effective. Indeed, I have been to Heathrow and seen that for myself. The UK currently has 24 protected zones for non-native plant pests and diseases. They ban the import of any host plants, unless they meet prescribed requirements to ensure freedom from the relevant pest or disease and are accompanied by a plant passport certifying that. In the UK, we have augmented these measures with national notification schemes for imports of oak, pine, sweet chestnut, plane, prunus and elm and for consignments of solid-fuel wood. These schemes provide intelligence and enable targeted checks. On the point my noble friend Lady Fookes made, later this year we will launch a consultation on quarantine arrangements for those plants deemed to be the highest risk. I should not say this, but I am rather keen on that.
We have introduced new registration requirements for all those who produce, store, move or sell plants and plant products. We have increased the number of goods which require a phytosanitary certificate, so that all plants and living parts of plants, except for five tropical fruits, now require certification upon import to the UK from outside Europe; and 38 high-risk plants, including native trees, are now provisionally prohibited from being imported into the UK from outside of Europe until a full assessment has been carried out.
A number of noble Lords asked what has been done with the tree health resilience strategy. Considerable progress has been made with the establishment of the UK plant biosecurity alliance, the launch of the HTA plant healthy management standard and self-assessment, the recruitment of more plant health inspectors at the border, the launch of Action Oak, the publication of our oak and ash research strategy and the planting of 3,000 tolerant trees in the UK’s first tolerant ash archive. Later this year, we will launch a formal consultation measure on quarantine.
On dealing with outbreaks, unfortunately we cannot eliminate all risks, but when outbreaks occur, the government plant health service, led by our Chief Plant Health Officer, has stringent, tested contingency plans. Last year, following six years’ surveillance, we announced the eradication of the Asian longhorn beetle from Kent. I am very pleased that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, mentioned the isolated outbreak of Ips typographus in Kent. It too is now under eradication. Last summer, we responded swiftly with emergency legislation to stop the trade in oaks from Europe taller than 1.2 metres—that is the height from which they are susceptible to oak processionary moth. Furthermore, all oaks from outside Europe are now prohibited.
I say emphatically to my noble friend Lord Framlingham that I was furious about this issue, but I can assure him that all the oak trees in the counties that he outlined in his question were located and destroyed. In London and Surrey, where we are seeking to contain oak processionary moth—an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Caithness—the Forestry Commission, local authorities and land managers are working on a programme of treatment and surveillance. I attended a day at the Royal Parks, where trees with 60 nests were being removed. The highly toxic nature of these pests means that we need to work on this.
Xylella was raised by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. We are playing a leading role in monitoring the risks from Xylella, ensuring that we have the most robust protections in place. We already have stringent import restrictions on the highest-risk hosts, such as olive trees, and we are reviewing what additional requirements are needed. I assure your Lordships that we will not hold back from introducing further measures; the Chief Plant Health Officer knows of my appetite on that.
Ash dieback was raised by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery. I remember from my childhood the loss of elm in the Vale of Aylesbury, and in the farm at Kimble where we lost great friends in those trees. I want to offer some hope amid this gloom. We have published our research strategy, and indeed invested money, with renowned institutions such as Kew, Cambridge, York, the James Hutton Institute and the John Innes Centre, to assemble the genome of the pathogen, estimate the ecological impacts of the disease and conduct the world’s largest genetic screening trials for disease tolerance. I mentioned the archive of 3,000 tolerant ash trees; this tolerance is hereditable. We are looking to use those trees in—I emphasise the words—an escalated and accelerated breeding programme to repopulate our landscapes. This is not only for the trees themselves but because of the ecosystem consequences.
I say to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, that we recommend felling only if it becomes a safety issue. I say also, to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that we are supporting landowners to manage diseased ash, establishing an ash dieback health and safety task force, and providing guidance and grants to replace trees. We are also working with local authorities because, clearly, that is extremely important. As far as private landowners are concerned, government grants are provided to support the felling of infected ash under the Countryside Stewardship scheme and grants for restocking are also available.
My noble friend Lord Home spoke about resistant elm cultivars. The most recent report of the trials—one of which has been initiated in Hampshire—was produced in 2019. Our research shows that the prospect for ash is far more favourable than for elm over the long term. Part of what we know is that the genome of the ash is much wider than the elm.
I turn to the grey squirrel. How could I not acknowledge the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and all that he and the UK Squirrel Accord are undertaking? With support from Defra, the accord’s research to develop an oral contraceptive as an effective method for controlling grey squirrel populations is delivering promising initial results. Fertility control has the potential to reduce grey squirrel populations and the spread of the squirrel pox virus. I am very much aware of our responsibilities—a point raised by my noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lord Colgrain. Our commitments under the Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order 2019 are hugely important. We recognise that we need greater resources for prevention and response to invasive species, and this will be under consideration.
On scientific expertise, the UK has been at the forefront of plant science for many years. Kew is a global and unparalleled resource for plant and fungal knowledge and collections. The Forest Research agency is the largest employer of forest scientists in the UK. I say to my noble friend Lord Framlingham that our UK Plant Health Risk Register contains details of more than 1,000 plant pests and pathogens. We are investing in research and evidence to understand pests and diseases and find new ways to tackle them; we invested more than £37 million between 2012 and 2019.
Last year, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and Defra announced a new £13 million research fund to address threats to plant health from bacterial pathogens. I acknowledge the work of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and all at Powderham for their co-operation in the ongoing work on sweet chestnut blight. Research is under way to inform long-term management and investigate whether an effective biocontrol can be developed in the United Kingdom. I say to my noble friend Lord Colgrain that Action Oak is a pioneering, collaborative partnership, raising funds for ambitious research. Under this umbrella, we are funding seven new PhDs on oak, and the University of Birmingham is investigating the natural resistance of native oaks in the arms race with pathogens.
I say also, to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that we are advising diversifying species and provenance to help woodlands become more resilient to pests, diseases and climate change. I have a list before me—aspen, beech, birch, cherry, field maple, hornbeam, oak, lime, rowan, sycamore, willow—and then the words “et cetera”. The importance in biosecurity is to make sure we have variety and range.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, raised phytophthora. This is clearly an issue of great concern. The Government have had a comprehensive programme of disease control in England since 2012; over £30 million has been provided to fund surveillance, detection, disease management, and so forth. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about the choice of tree species. The point again is that diversity in our woodland species, and genetics within species, in adapting to climate change is hugely important.
Any future changes to plant health and official controls legislation will continue to be based on principles of providing high levels of biosecurity. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that my ambitions are to raise biosecurity. On tax incentives, this is way above my pay grade and something for the Chancellor, but we are preparing to consult on an English tree strategy, which will explore what policies are needed to support our domestic nursery sector.
Nurseries, foresters, landowners, landscapers, charities, trade bodies, gardeners and scientists all have a major role to play. Defra has worked with industry to establish a senior UK plant biosecurity committee of representatives from across these professions—indeed, we will be meeting in Kew next week—with the aim of constantly raising biosecurity standards in the UK. The Plant Healthy assurance scheme is an initiative of this new alliance and will be launched by the Horticultural Trades Association, in collaboration with Grown in Britain, this year. Across the country, consumers will be able to recognise the Plant Healthy brand—I am so relieved that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, was able to provide assurances about poinsettias—and buy with greater biosecurity confidence, which is so important. Raising awareness of good biosecurity is essential. The Government promote the Keep It Clean and Don’t Risk It! campaigns.
We are all united in our determination to protect our trees. We must invest and use the scientific expertise we have in this country, while also—I emphasise—working closely with other countries across the world as well as with the devolved Administrations. We all have an interest in enhancing our abilities to counter threats and diseases. In this battle—it is a battle—I am in no doubt that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and all your Lordships, will be in the vanguard of these vital endeavours.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, on both my behalf and that of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this fascinating and very important debate. I thank the Minister for a very detailed and helpful reply, which I am sure we will all want to study with some care when it appears in Hansard.
The debate has drawn attention in the most powerful way possible to the scale of the problem that we face. We have covered many parts of the country, from Devon, east Kent and Wiltshire to South Yorkshire, Wales and Scotland. We have heard detailed descriptions from people who really know what they are talking about of the problems that they face. Of course it is right to say that landowners bear a responsibility for looking after the trees that they have on their land, but the Government have a major part to play too because of the resources and powers that are available and the initiatives that they can take. I hope that what has come through the debate is the message that we look to the Government for initiatives, particularly in the realm of biodiversity, which will seek to address the problem.
There is a curious paradox here. Someone said, although I cannot remember who it was, that a person working in woodlands had said it was the safest job he had ever had because you do not see the results. It is a long-term process; trees take many years to develop. But the problems we face are the complete reverse; they are not long-term problems at all but urgent. It is very dangerous to think of planting wide areas of woodland when we face issues that could destroy them before they even have a chance to get going. So this is a major problem and an urgent one, but we can feel encouraged that the Minister will do his very best to respond to it.
I was very taken with the tribute paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, when she said that the Minister had done more than most to raise awareness of the impact of these diseases. I believe that is true. He is very well placed, because of his knowledge and experience, to carry forward the message that has come from this debate. We very much look forward to the results of that, which, as I say, are short-term, so many of us are young enough to see the results of that although we may not see the trees grow to their full potential. I beg to move.
Online Harms Legislation
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, with permission, I would like to repeat a response to an Urgent Question. The response was made earlier today by my honourable friend the Minister for Digital and Broadband in the other place on the Government’s response to the consultation on online harms. The response is as follows.
“This Government are taking significant action to tackle the issue of harm taking place online. There is widespread consensus that online platforms must do more to make sure their services are safe for all users, particularly children, while also promoting freedom of expression online. Strikingly, far fewer parents now believe that the benefits of their child being online outweigh the risks, falling from 65% of parents in 2015 to 55% last year. This is a worrying trend that we must address. We can keep the benefits of the digital economy only if we can improve trust and confidence in technology and tackle what erodes it.
The online harms White Paper published last April proposed a statutory duty of care enforced by an independent regulator. Since its publication, we have consulted on our proposals and announced our intention to legislate in the Queen’s Speech. The evidence given during the consultation will help us get the balance right between an open and vibrant internet and one where users are protected from harm. Yesterday, as set out in a Written Ministerial Statement, the Government published our initial consultation response on GOV.UK. The response set out our proposed direction of travel following the consultation process. We will publish a full response in the spring before bringing forward legislation.
There are four specific points raised during the consultation that I would like to bring to the attention of the House. First, we must ensure that in aiming to make the internet safer we do not inadvertently stifle legitimate debate. We will place safeguards in legislation, giving companies and the regulator the responsibility to protect users’ rights online, including to freedom of expression. We will also introduce greater transparency about content removal so that users can appeal if their content is taken down.
Secondly, we know that greater protections are needed to keep young people safe online. The new regulatory framework will require companies to take steps to prevent children from accessing age-inappropriate content and to protect them from other harms.
Thirdly, some consultation responses raised concerns that the regulation would place undue burdens on sites where opportunities for harm to occur are limited. Our legislation will be proportionate and risk-based, affecting only those companies where there is risk of harm. The duty of care will apply only to businesses facilitating the sharing of user-generated content—for example, through comments or video sharing. Only around 5% of UK businesses provide such functions.
Fourthly, the regulator will ensure that in-scope companies have appropriate systems and processes in place to protect users from harm, especially children and the most vulnerable.
We are minded to appoint Ofcom to regulate online harms, building on its experience and expertise to make further progress on this important issue. We also yesterday appointed Ofcom to regulate video-sharing platforms under the audio-visual media service directive, which aims to reduce harmful content on these sites. This will provide quicker protections for some harms and activities and will act as a stepping stone to the full online harms regulatory framework.
We will publish a full consultation response in the spring, setting out further details of our plans ahead of legislation. Alongside this, the Home Office will publish voluntary interim codes of practice to set out what companies should do to prevent terrorist use of the internet or child sexual exploitation and abuse on their platforms. We are confident that this publication, and the other plans we are driving forward, will help to make Britain the safest place to be online and the best digital economy in the world.”
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to hear that repeat of the reply in the other place. We have been building a narrative around these questions since April last year, when the online harms White Paper was published. Many of the themes adumbrated there continue to be repeated because we can now see clearly where the main focus of action will take place.
I have a couple of questions. The first is about the regulatory framework and regulation in general. The balance between freedom and constraint will always be what we debate as the actual measures come before us. We hear on the news this morning that the technology companies will be fighting hard to keep their corner. We have decided to come out of the European Union but the EU is framing its own regulatory responses to this same question, so my first question is: at this critical time, are we in touch with others who are forming responses to these questions so that, as far as humanly possible, we can have across-the-board harmony between those seeking the safeguards we are talking about?
My second question concerns the suggestion that we might give this responsibility for oversight to Ofcom. Of course, it comes with its own plaudits and track record—nobody has any doubt about that—but it continues to accrue to itself more and more areas of responsibility. I must say that in the preliminary discussions I have been party to, I heard more than once the suggestion that using another regulator—perhaps one doing an apprenticeship with Ofcom—might be a more appropriate way forward, with an eventual separation of bodies, as it were. We would not want, through this accumulation of responsibility, to diminish Ofcom’s capacity and insight. Can we expect any gratification from our anxieties in this area?
Baroness Barran
I thank the noble Lord for his questions. On what is happening in this area internationally, including in the EU, we are watching and liaising closely with other countries. This is a global issue by its very nature. We do not want that liaison to hold us up—we are keen to make progress as quickly as possible—but we are co-ordinating.
No final decision has been taken on Ofcom, although the former Secretary of State was clear when she said that she was “minded to appoint Ofcom” as the regulator. There is now a programme of work to look at how this would work in practice. We will be able to confirm more on that later in the spring, but there is a clear commitment to make sure that the resources are available to make this work well.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I understand that when my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones raised this matter during Questions, there was harrumphing from the Neanderthals on the Minister’s Back Benches about such impudence. It is worth reminding ourselves that this is not a gentlemen’s club; it is a House of Parliament where government is held to account. I therefore welcome the Government’s quick response in supplying this Statement.
I welcome the responsibilities being given to Ofcom. What worries me is that in three or six months’ time, the Minister will be at the Dispatch Box saying, “Unfortunately, Ofcom has not been able to do the preparatory work needed”, because it has neither the funds nor the mandate under present legislation. That is why I urge her again to consider adopting my paving Bill, which was drafted in co-operation with the Carnegie Trust and which any Government might have brought forward anyway. It gives a chance for action this day on the preparations needed, which Ofcom could get on with.
There is also the matter of the Minister referring this morning to a Cabinet Office committee looking at some of the issues covered by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, concerning damages to democracy. Who does that committee report to? Is a Minister responsible for its work? When we will have a report on its work?
Also, there was pressure in the Commons this morning for pre-legislative scrutiny. That would waste time but I urge the Minister to consider giving both the DCMS Committee and the Communications Committee in this House the job of taking the first look at Ofcom’s work.
Finally, I want to put on record that last night, the Minister, Matt Warman—it is no use the Whip glaring at me, I have not taken as long as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths. I will not be bullied by the Whip; she should go out if she does not want to listen to me. Last night, Matt Warman spoke at a round table and was brilliant. I hope that praise from my quarter does not damage his future political career. Perhaps I can avoid that by putting on record that I think Dominic Cummings is doing a wonderful job.
Baroness Barran
I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments about my honourable friend. As he knows, we share many of the same objectives. I know that officials in the department have found liaising with the noble Lord very helpful; I hope that work can continue.
On the Cabinet Office committee, the Government set up the Defending Democracy programme to pull together existing work and expertise from a number of departments. It is led by the Cabinet Office. I will write to the noble Lord with more detail on that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for updating us. I declare my interest as chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum.
I want to put on record my concerns about the initial consultation response, which talks of protecting users’ rights online, harmful activity and a company breaching its duty of care. We must make sure that we are aware that “age-inappropriate” does not go with only chronological age. Many people cannot cope with things that younger people can, although their age on paper is older, because of developmental delay or whatever.
We must also be aware that people become vulnerable to health harms, quite apart from the obvious horror of child pornography. That includes aggravating sites that encourage suicide, eating disorders and mental illness generally. There are also sites that hook people into debt. Even shopping sites do it; it is not just gambling sites. For example, if you purchase something on Amazon, you may find that have inadvertently contracted with Amazon Prime. Undoing that contract is not simple. If you live independently and are supported as the second principle of the Mental Capacity Act requires, but you do not have the cognitive skills to find your way to undoing that contract, you can find yourself locked into paying a lot of money and inadvertently getting into debt. All the good that is being done for independent living can rapidly be undone.
Baroness Barran
The noble Baroness puts her finger on an important point. The task of defining vulnerability will be a key element in our work between now and the spring. Forgive me if my answer is brief but it is a complex and important area.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, have Her Majesty’s Government taken into account what other countries are doing to tackle online harms?
Baroness Barran
We are liaising on developments in the EU and globally but, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, we will not let that slow us down.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister also look at my Private Member’s Bill on children’s well-being and online harms?
Baroness Barran
I can make no promises as there is apparently a reshuffle this afternoon, but I will endeavour to look at it whatever the outcome.
Smart Motorways
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the safety of smart motorways and what plans they have to review their policy towards them.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to hold this debate. I start by recording my condolences for those who have lost loved ones or suffered serious injury in an incident on a smart motorway.
When smart motorways were first discussed, I sat on the RAC Foundation Public Policy Committee; I am currently a subscribing member of the RAC club. At that time, I expressed in the strongest possible terms real and grave concerns on safety grounds, as smart motorways clearly pose an immediate danger to the drivers and occupants of cars—particularly where they might break down on a hard shoulder that is being used as a running lane—as well as to other motorway users. While the existing road structure may have been deemed to lead to congestion, that a broken-down vehicle could clog up what was essentially used for emergency purposes as a hard shoulder was surely unconscionable.
The department appears to use a formula based on a points system to assess road safety elements. Points are allocated according to the number of casualties or fatalities caused by an unsafe road either to justify motorway improvements or the construction of a roundabout. If the formula of the points-based allocation is not met, nothing will happen. I know this to be the case with roundabouts from personal experience. Many people before me had campaigned for a roundabout to be built on the northern access to the town of Easingwold in the former constituency of the Vale of York. My predecessors had been very vocal in this regard. On election day 1997, three people were killed at the exact spot of the requested roundabout. As a result of that tragedy, the requisite number of casualties had been reached and points satisfied, and the roundabout was built.
I will leave the Minister, whom I am delighted to see in her place, to describe smart motorways and their purpose. Essentially, they rely on technology to make use of the hard shoulder. Initially, the pilot was cautious, opening up hard shoulders only at peak times, with emergency refuge areas closely spaced. Then in the early 2010s, plans emerged to turn motorway hard shoulders into permanent running lanes—managed motorways known as all-lane running. Later, they became smart motorways and the Highways Agency decided to space the emergency refuge areas further apart.
As I understand it, there are currently three types of smart motorway scheme: all-lane running, dynamic hard shoulder. and controlled motorways. The Highways Agency surely believed at the time that the design would be as safe as existing motorways, but it recognised the increasing risk of a vehicle breaking down in a live traffic lane. Highways England, as it became, estimates that congestion on motorway and major road networks in England costs £2 billion every year, yet it acknowledges that 25% of that congestion results from incidents on those motorways.
The safety record of smart motorways was not good and has deteriorated. Thirty-eight people died on smart motorways in the five years to January this year. On one section of the M25, the number of near-misses since the hard shoulder was removed in April 2014 increased from 72 in 2014 to almost 1,500 in 2019. That is staggering.
Clearly, every fatality represents a human tragedy and wasteful loss of life. I want to refer to just one: the case of a mother who was killed on the M6 elevated area. The driver pulled over, but the hard shoulder was in use as a dynamic lane where there was no emergency refuge area or exit for 2.5 miles. I would say that that death was preventable.
Cars which break down in a live lane leave occupants fearful whether they can safely exit the vehicle or whether they will be spotted if they remain in it. Highways Agency figures show that it takes on average 17 minutes to reach a vehicle in such circumstances.
A welcome pause came on 30 January this year when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—I do not know whether he is still in position as we speak; the Minister indicates that he is, so I congratulate him—stated that the M20 and other stretches of road will not be opened as planned as smart motorways until the outcome of the government review is known. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take this opportunity to speak as freely and openly as she can to let us know what the state of that review is.
I want to take a moment to consider the alternatives, of which there are essentially three. First, I know that many such as the AA would scrap smart motorways and hard-shoulder running lanes and revert to using hard shoulders as they were originally intended, allowing police, ambulance, fire and other emergency vehicles to access injured occupants as quickly as possible. The second option is to increase the number of existing emergency refuge areas so that, in the event of a breakdown, there is more chance of a vehicle reaching the emergency refuge area. Thirdly, we could widen existing carriageways or increase the number of lanes from three to four, albeit they may be narrower.
How will such improvements be paid for? While I recognise that hypothecation is not normally permitted, one or two motorways have been seen to benefit recently from hypothecated funding. I urge the Government to consider spending road tax revenues on improving road safety and investing in an alternative infrastructure to smart motorways, thereby making our roads safer.
I want to end with a number of questions for my noble friend the Minister. Does she agree with, and will she have regard to, the words of the national chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, who has said that smart motorways are inherently dangerous, put lives at risk and are death-traps? No one should know better than the police and other emergency personnel how unsafe smart motorways have turned out to be.
Can the Minister put our minds at rest that cost savings have not been chosen over human life and road safety? Will the Government take this opportunity to reverse the priority and either return the hard shoulder to its original use or increase the width and number of lanes?
As asked in Local Transport Today, is it acceptable that a risk should have consciously been designed into smart motorways in order to deliver the benefits of increased road capacity? Surely the benefits of road capacity must be secondary to the fundamental safety of those using the motorways.
Smart motorways may have been considered as safe as traditional motorways, but that has been proved not to be the case. Even when they were initially piloted, it was known that they could have been safer. It is unacceptable that cost appears to have been chosen over road safety, and what a cost it has been. Now is the time to end the speculation, to end this catastrophic experiment and to put safety first.
Cost and saving money must not trump road safety.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for introducing this debate. She spoke with great passion and I agree profoundly with her sentiments.
In the face of rising motorway congestion, the vision of a lower-cost way of expanding our motorways was very tempting, but careful safeguards were built in right at the beginning. Unfortunately, that vision was compromised, as the noble Baroness said, by cost- cutting measures. A key one was a reduction in the frequency of safety lay-bys. Although they were originally envisaged to be every 600 metres, we now hear of one example where they are 2.5 miles apart. We are informed that the frequency of lay-bys was reduced to shave 2% off the cost of a motorway. If we compare that with the cost overrun on HS2, for example, it puts it in perspective.
Safety in the vision of smart motorways depended on four factors: frequent safety lay-bys; the use of radar to enable virtually instant identification of stationary cars in the inside lane, so that the lane could be closed; regular and frequent highway patrols; and widespread public education about how to use these motorways. None of these has happened in the way it should have—and that change of policy occurred not with public debate but by stealth. People, as the noble Baroness pointed out, have died as a result. One of the most worrying statistics about smart motorways is the number of near-misses. Noble Lords who have driven along them will know that they are very scary.
I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s stocktake. It is absolutely essential and I fully support it. Will it be published and, if so, when? I asked a Written Question on this, but the Answer did not include that information. It is essential that this stocktake is done as soon as possible and that the information is published. It must set new clear standards for smart motorways, and I would urge an annual review of the effectiveness of those standards.
There is recent information that it will be three years before we see radar on the stretches that have already been installed. To my mind, that is far too long; we cannot have three years of unsafe operation. The Government should return these stretches of road to hard shoulders again until radar is installed—I urge the Minister to consider this.
I asked the previous Minister about the M20 in the run-up to Brexit preparations. The reply I got was that it was as safe as other contraflows. Contraflows are temporary arrangements, and it worries me that the Government are perhaps using two different standards for measuring the safety of smart motorways. Can the Minister update us on the situation on the M20 and the permanence of all-lane running there? In the short term, one solution to the problems faced on smart motorways is that the speed limit could be reduced significantly. Are the Government considering that as a solution? It is of course important that those speed limits are properly enforced.
Finally, I raise the issue of electric vehicles. When an electric vehicle ceases to function, it stops; it does not coast in the way that other vehicles do. Smart motorways are supposed to be the future, but the future is electric. Those vehicles stop very suddenly. They also cannot be towed; they have to be put on a low-loader, which is a much more complex and longer process that will put rescue teams in greater danger. So can we have special consideration for how these new motorway layouts will operate when there are lots of electric vehicles on the road?
Lord Jordan (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on the way in which she has introduced this subject. I declare an interest as deputy president of RoSPA. When the first smart motorway experiment opened on the M42 in 2006, it showed great potential for improving the situation caused by the growing congestion on Britain’s motorways. Using technology, new techniques were developed to better manage the increasing volumes of traffic. Warning systems eased and even averted traffic jams, alerted motorists to congestion points and proved invaluable in emergency situations.
These improvements led Sir Mike Penning, former government Minister and chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Roadside Rescue and Recovery, to approve the 2010 rollout of the smart motorway programme. But the developers of the system allowed their quest for more speed and more capacity to eclipse the need for safety by giving the go-ahead to permanently converting the hard shoulder into running lanes on around 300 miles of motorway. The all-lane-running motorway had arrived.
The consequences of that ill-thought-out decision were vividly illustrated in the BBC’s recent “Panorama” programme, which revealed—as the noble Baroness has said—that 38 people have been killed in the past five years on the UK’s smart motorway network. The all-lane-running policy is the fatal flaw in the smart motorway system. The Minister will hear this theme running through many of the contributions. It has made the job of the emergency rescue services infinitely more difficult. It increases the risk of breaking down in a live lane and, as we have heard, even the police have branded the scheme a death-trap.
All motorists who have ever driven on a motorway fear the possibility of their vehicle suddenly losing power, but reassure themselves that they have a good chance of reaching the safe haven of the hard shoulder. Unfortunately, all four types of smart motorway that have been introduced have, in varying degrees, removed that haven of the hard shoulder for a motorist in distress. In an RAC survey last November, 68% of drivers in England thought removing the hard shoulder put people whose vehicle breaks down at greater risk. These fears are well founded, as a freedom of information request sent by “Panorama” to Highways England revealed that on one section of the M25 the number of near-misses has risen twentyfold since the hard shoulder was removed in April 2014.
While we in the safety industry think the Government’s decision not to open the M20 and other stretches of road as smart motorways is a step in the right direction, 38 avoidable deaths tell us that this is not enough. Regrettably, unless further remedial action is taken, more people will die. We are told by the Government that an imminent review is expected to recommend a major overhaul of the smart motorways scheme. That is welcome. In that exercise I ask the Government to reach out and embrace the expertise and experience of the road safety industry. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents can and will play its part. We should remember that lives are in danger on more than 200 miles of smart motorway in the UK now, so I ask the Minister to urge her colleagues in the Government to take time to bring in the things that will make our motorways safer and more effective, but to lose no time in removing the things that are making our motorways kill.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron (Con)
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend very much for bringing this debate on a pressing current issue. I first thought of speaking in this debate because, like many drivers, I have experienced the congestion that has occurred during the construction of these motorways. That would have been fine if one had ended up with a really good product in the end, but as we have heard from some speeches already, that is the opposite of the case. Also, of course, like other drivers, I have seen exactly how dangerous the abolition of the hard shoulder obviously is: it is simply common sense. However, having looked at it in a little more detail in preparation for speaking, I see that the situation is actually far worse.
As noble Lords have heard, 38 people have died on smart motorways in the past five years and there has apparently been an almost 2,000% increase in the number of near-misses on one section of the M25. Even more worrying, I read that two former Roads Ministers have gone on record as saying that they were misled—a strong word—by the Highways Agency about the safe spacing of refuge lay-bys on smart motorways. They were told that these would appear every 500 metres when there was all-lane running, whereas in fact they have been every mile and a half or so. The Police Federation has also gone on record as saying that it has always opposed the introduction of smart motorways on safety grounds. The Highways Agency has apparently introduced radar technology to detect broken-down vehicles, but on only 25 miles out of a total of 400 miles of the smart motorway network, contrary to its pledge of 100%.
In these circumstances, it is no wonder that the Highways Agency is facing legal claims for corporate manslaughter arising from some of the tragic deaths on smart motorways. I also read that more than 250,000 people have signed a petition to have smart motorways stopped. I know that my family, for one, feels exactly this way. I have to say that in my view, given all these facts and the speeches that have been made this afternoon, I find the word “smart” somewhat offensive. I think it is originally an American word, and I am partly American, so I am familiar with it. There is a word beginning with “d” and ending with “b” that is the opposite of “smart” if you are an American, and I suggest that that word is more appropriate to the situation. In more parliamentary language, it is certainly reckless and perhaps very ill advised.
In closing, I put two questions to the Minister, and I am not necessarily looking for an answer this afternoon. First, how much has the construction of the smart motorway network cost to date, including the economic cost of all the traffic delays and congestion caused by that construction? Secondly, we have heard about the 38 people who have tragically died on the smart motorway network in the past five years. In addition to that, how many people have been injured or seriously injured?
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, like previous speakers I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for introducing this debate. It is apparent that smart motorways have few friends—other than perhaps in the Department for Transport. Those of us who have used them are aware of the dangers and see from time to time the awesome consequences of all four lanes of traffic being in use at exactly the same time.
My noble friend Lord Jordan referred to the BBC “Panorama” programme—I do not know whether the Minister saw it. She might have lots of free time to watch television, given what we are hearing in the media, but we wish her well as far as her future, at least in this House, is concerned. My noble friend referred to the example given in the programme of the number of deaths on smart motorways. The programme also gave lists of near-misses on the M25 on those parts of it that have been converted into smart motorways. I am not quite sure where the BBC got these figures, but it publicised them during the programme and in writing since. Prior to these parts of the M25 being converted into smart motorways, there were 72 near-misses on one particular stretch. Following the conversion there were 1,485 near-misses on the same stretch. So it is apparent to most of us that making running lanes of all four lanes is inherently dangerous.
What can we do instead of spending money on widening our motorways and making many or all of them smart motorways? I will make a couple of constructive suggestions that the Minister might like to look at. We ought to have a driver education programme, inspired perhaps by the department, on keeping to the left on motorways. We are all familiar with the middle-lane hogger. My estimate from driving around is that something like 40% of private motorists never use the left-hand lane anyway and will sit in the middle. They are the same ones who, after millions of pounds have been spent converting three-lane motorways to four-lane ones, leave two empty lanes on their left-hand side, because they then sit in lane three at 50 miles per hour.
The former Secretary of State, Mr Grayling, announced in publicity for which he was famous, if for nothing else, that people would be prosecuted for middle-lane hogging. I have asked a Question since about how many people have been prosecuted. I cannot get the figures because evidently they are not centrally kept, but my view is that, given the general lack of traffic police on our motorways and roads these days, that figure would probably be less than a dozen over the two or three years since the law was changed. So the Minister might consider some aspects of expenditure other than on smart motorways.
It is an accepted fact all over the world—except in the corridors of the Department for Transport—that the more road space you create, the quicker you generate more traffic to fill that space. The noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, said that he was partly American and had spent part of his life in the United States. In southern California, there are 12-lane highways between Los Angeles and San Diego. It takes six hours to travel between those cities on a Friday afternoon because all 12 lanes are full of traffic. It does not make any sense, other than in the corridors of the Department for Transport, to generate more traffic, particularly in the pollution-conscious age we are supposed to be living in. Yet those are the policies that we have followed under successive Governments, and if we try to curb the private car—I am as guilty as anybody else; I drive a car, like most noble Lords—we are told that this is a war on motorists. Well, if it is a war, it is a war that is currently not being won very well.
I am not alone in my aversion to smart motorways; nor are noble Lords in this place. I looked online this morning at an organisation called Change.org which has set up an online petition against smart motorways; this morning, no less than 270,358 people had signed the petition and hundreds more are signing on a daily basis. That shows the department and transport Ministers that there is genuine concern about and an aversion to what is happening on our motorways. Like the previous speaker, I do not think that they are particularly smart at all. A combination of driver education, more traffic police and a more sensible transport policy on the private car is long overdue. I look forward to the Minister telling us that this will happen.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for this debate and apologise for missing the first few seconds of her very clear introduction. I join the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, in questioning the terminology of “smart” motorways and intend to refer to them as “all-lane running” motorways instead.
I declare my personal interest in road safety and the reason for it. When I was 23, I was in a car crash in which my mother was killed. I know what it is like to go through this experience. I know what the impact is like on families, emergency services workers and everyone who sees and is around that experience. For that reason I am passionate about Vision Zero, a policy which aims for no fatalities or serious injuries on roads and which was first adopted by the Swedish Parliament in 1997. It has since been adopted by a number of US states, where between 1997 and 2014 they had a 25% faster fall in road fatalities than those that had not adopted it. The Mayor of London has also adopted this policy, with a target date of 2041 for London. Will the Government consider taking this approach? All-lane running motorways are absolutely out of line with that approach. Indeed, they take us in utterly the wrong, opposite direction. It is acknowledged that, to achieve Vision Zero, a key aspect is road design. As many noble Lords have set out before me, the clear evidence is that this road design is disastrous and dangerous.
There is another reason why I wanted to speak in this debate. Near my home city of Sheffield, there is a 16-mile stretch of the M1 where five people have died in the last 10 months. One of those was Jason Mercer, who was killed by an HGV after he had had a minor incident with a driver called Alexandru Murgeanu. They were both killed when they stopped to exchange details by the side of the road on this all-lane running motorway. I pay tribute to his widow Claire, who has been at the absolute forefront of campaigning on this issue and continues to be. But Claire should not be in the position that she is in now, because, as we have heard from previous noble Lords, there are growing calls for the Government to take action to reverse this disastrous policy. We need to end this danger now.
I will very briefly address an issue beyond road safety: the innately flawed approach that is behind this. It is well known that the term “induced demand” is used in traffic engineering: if you build more roads, you create more traffic. Opening up the hard shoulder is equivalent to building more roads. As the noble Lord said about 12-lane highways, they just fill up. There is a way to increase the capacity of our motorways, and that it is to reduce speed limits. With reduced stopping distances, we could actually fit more cars onto the road. However, it probably will not surprise noble Lords that, as a Green Party Peer, I am not looking to increase the amount of traffic on our roads. We focus on road safety in terms of crashes, but road safety has many other aspects as well, such as air pollution. The area of Sheffield to which I was referring—a very poor area—suffers very badly from air pollution. The last thing it needs on its roads is more cars and the accompanying pollution.
Finally, I will pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about education. As noble Lords will be aware, I am certainly a very large user of social media, but the first time that I saw any safety information from the Government about the whole issue of all-lane running motorways was when I opened the House of Lords briefing for today’s debate. I have not seen anything anywhere else. I am perhaps representative of people rather younger than myself, but surely we should ensure that we reach young drivers through social media campaigns and education about what is happening on our roads.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on securing this debate. It is a very important subject and we do not seem to be getting very far with our concerns. I share the fear and worry of many other noble Lords: with no hard shoulder, driving is quite a frightening experience because everywhere, not just on the hard shoulders, people are driving too close. They do not seem to see parked vehicles until it is too late and they cannot stop or divert. In the old days—I suppose when I started to drive, 100 years ago or so—you were always told to keep enough distance from the vehicle in front of you so that you could stop if it stopped suddenly. That certainly does not happen nowadays.
What can be done? The noble Baroness mentioned the Swedish experiment, which is very interesting. It has achieved a significant reduction in the number of deaths. But there has been a curve between the deaths when it started, in 2000, and now: there was a significant drop in the first three years, then it levelled off. That is exactly the same as has happened here, according to the latest Road Safety Statement for 2019. That rather indicates that the low-hanging fruit has been picked already and we have to do something more radical.
In this country we have around 1,770 deaths each year on the roads, and 26,000 people are killed and seriously injured. That is a terribly high figure. As noble Lords have said, every one is a serious personal tragedy. What are we going to do about it? We can debate ad nauseam whether motorways are riskier or more threatening than other roads. What would happen if the smart motorways were abolished and speed limits introduced? There would probably be more delays, but is a delay not better than a death or a serious injury? We all think it will not happen to us until it does.
I suppose this is a bit of a refrain of mine: we need to enforce the law. Speeding is one thing—the law is easy to enforce, but that does not happen as often as it should. However, we need a step change. I have suggested for a number of years that when you compare the legislation for other safety activities, including on the railways, which is led by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, it means that you all have to operate in a manner that is as safe as is reasonably practicable. That means that as the driver, you have the responsibility for acting safely, and if you do not, the enforcement is pretty high and pretty heavy. It applies in many parts of industry, and on the railways, and I cannot see why it cannot apply on the roads as well.
The easiest way would be for the Office of Rail and Road to be given responsibility for road safety. On rail, if you contravene the railway legislation, which is based on the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, you will get into serious trouble. The statistics bear it out. Last year, on the railways there were 17 passenger fatalities on the main line and on the Underground. We can leave suicides to one side, sadly, because that is a difficult subject. However, there were no train accidents involving fatalities, whereas, as I said, there were 1,770 road deaths and 26,000 people killed and seriously injured. I know that if you measure the fatalities per mile travelled, you can come up with all kinds of things. However, the ORR’s approach to road safety puts the responsibility for avoiding accidents and driving safely on the person driving. They are often at work—many usually are—and Ministers should seriously look at that as a way of dramatically reducing road deaths.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to those expressed to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on securing this timely debate.
The Government have obviously been aware that there is a problem for some time; the Secretary of State announced last autumn that they would be conducting a review, or evidence stock-take, of smart motorway safety as there were concerns that people were dying on them. What precisely were the figures on deaths and injuries on smart motorways that led the Government to institute the review, and when will we know its findings?
The Oakervee review into HS2 was also started last autumn and has already been completed, with some consequential decisions taken by the Government. Why then has this review into smart motorway safety not also been completed by now, bearing in mind that people’s lives could be at stake? Just how independent is a review led by the Department for Transport, which is hardly an impartial bystander on this matter? A review, if it is to be credible, has to look at the role and decisions of the Department for Transport and Highways England.
Last month, as a number of noble Lords have said, a freedom of information request told us that 38 people died on smart motorways in the last five years and that, on one section of the M25, since the hard shoulder was removed in April 2014, near misses had increased from 72 that year to 1,485 in 2019. A letter published recently in the Times read:
“In 2003 I was the police service’s national operational lead for the implementation of the M42 active traffic management scheme. The M42 scheme is 11 miles long and has emergency refuge areas (ERAs) sited approximately 500m to 800m apart, with more than 50 signage gantries. It has virtually total CCTV coverage, with more than 200 cameras monitoring all running lanes. When smart motorways were being planned I and a few others expressed our concerns about safety, particularly the expansion of the gaps between ERAs, but to no avail. Fatalities might have been avoided had the design of smart motorways not strayed from that of the M42 active management scheme. Smart motorways should be urgently reviewed and compared against the M42 scheme still in operation.”
Could the Minister say whether the in-house Department for Transport review is taking the advice of the Times letter writer, and reviewing and comparing smart motorways against the M42 scheme opened in 2006 and still in operation?
Smart motorways are not all the same. On some, the hard shoulder is opened at busy times; on others, it is permanently converted into a traffic lane. Regularly spaced refuge areas are used for emergencies. Smart motorways are intended to relieve congestion by increasing road capacity faster and at less cost than traditional road-widening schemes. New technology is being introduced to mitigate risks to road users, with a stopped- vehicle detection system operational on the M25.
Highways England and the Department for Transport say, in the Road Safety Statement 2019 published in July 2019:
“Early indications suggest that the more recent all lane running smart motorway schemes are also delivering a safety benefit.”
Could the Government say why, if that is the case, just three months later the Government, through the Secretary of State, announced a review into smart motorway safety?
The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Roadside Rescue and Recovery published a report into all-lane running smart motorways. The group concluded that the rollout of these smart motorways should be stopped until safety measures are put in place on all existing stretches of all-lane running motorways, including retrofitting smart motorways with stopped-vehicle detection systems. The RAC says that two-thirds of drivers tell it that the permanent removal of the hard shoulder compromises safety in the event of a breakdown.
An earlier report, from the Commons Transport Select Committee in 2016, stated that it was unable to support all-lanes running due to fundamental safety concerns. The Committee said:
“The All Lane Running design has been chosen on the basis of cost savings, and it is not acceptable for the Department to proceed with a less-safe design, putting people’s lives at risk, in order to cut costs.”
On 22 January, the Minister of State at the Department for Transport said, in a Commons debate:
“The Secretary of State is, as we speak, putting the finishing touches on a serious package of measures”,—[Official Report, Commons, 22/1/20; col. 111WH.]
and that the package of safety measures would be “announced imminently”—obviously not that imminently, since it is now three weeks later and, as far as I know, we have heard nothing more. I hope the Government, in their response today, will be able to tell us more about the current position on addressing the safety of smart motorways than the Minister of State, who accepted there was a problem, did just over three weeks ago.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady McIntosh has provided an opportunity to debate a very topical subject and for that I thank her and all noble Lords who have contributed. I take this opportunity to share my deepest condolences with the families of those who have tragically lost their lives, and of course with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who has shared her story with us today. I have had the honour of meeting Meera Naran, the mother of Dev, who died last year. To honour his death and those of many others, we must redouble our efforts to make all our roads as safe as they can be.
Being in a vehicle is risky and dangerous. Although we have some of the safest roads in the world, nearly as safe as those in Sweden, around 1,500 people die every year. Motorways are the safest type of road. The fatality rate on an A road, for example, is four times higher than that on a motorway. But any death on our roads is one too many and where changes can be made, they should be. Furthermore, I recognise, as do many people in my department, that some drivers feel less safe on a smart motorway than on a conventional one, and we understand that. That is why the Secretary of State asked the department to carry out an evidence stock-take to gather the facts about the safety of smart motorways and to speak to a wide range of families and stakeholders to understand what could be done to make people feel safer. The stock-take will be published shortly.
Smart motorways increase capacity by around a third and help tackle congestion on some of our most busy roads. They help people get from A to B as well as keep our freight moving. They enable us to increase capacity while minimising the amount of additional land required. This has environmental benefits and it means that capacity can be added more quickly. But safety must be a priority. Highways England’s objective is to ensure that a stretch of road that is converted to a smart motorway is at least as safe as it was previously, and that is what the evidence stock-take is looking at.
It is worth reflecting on the conversion of a hard shoulder to a running lane—a key feature that increases capacity on smart motorways—and then looking at the provision and spacing of the emergency areas that essentially replace the hard shoulder and which can cause concern. It is worth noting up front that the hard shoulder on a traditional motorway is not a safe place to stop. One in 12 fatalities on a motorway happens on the hard shoulder. In contrast, there have been no fatal collisions in emergency areas on smart motorways. Furthermore, research shows that approximately 90% of stops on the hard shoulder of conventional motorways are unnecessary; they are simply not emergencies, and they involve putting not only the drivers themselves at risk but their passengers. We will come back to this again and again: public information and public awareness are key to road safety, and that is just one example of where it really would make a big difference.
In today’s schemes, the emergency areas on smart motorways are spaced at a maximum of 2,500 metres, which is about every mile and a half, so at 60 mph, a driver can get to one in under 90 seconds. A number of noble Lords have mentioned the closeness of the spacing of the ERAs on the M42. I will write in more detail about that because it is very important to understand that the M42 did not have the same system as we have now. It was a proof of concept and it is not the same system, so it is not comparable. However, as I say, I will write to explain.
Highways England undertook a review and found that there was no consistent correlation between the number of live-lane stops and the spacing of emergency areas, while the improved reliability of modern vehicles means it is rare that drivers are unable to reach an emergency area if they need to stop. Although there is no consistent correlation between the number of live-lane stops and the spacing of emergency areas, it is important that users feel as safe as they should. Highways England is therefore making a number of changes to the design of emergency areas, so where my noble friend is concerned that cost is given priority over safety, it is a fact that safety—or more specifically, the perception of safety—is in this circumstance being prioritised over cost. The specification for the maximum spacing of emergency areas on new schemes has been cut by a third from 1.5 miles to 1 mile, so a driver travelling at 60 mph would get to one within 60 seconds. This will help drivers feel more confident that they can find a safe place to stop in an emergency. All emergency areas will be fitted with orange surfacing to make them more visible and better advance signing to give information on exactly how far it is until you reach the next one.
One concern noted by many noble Lords is the risk of a live-lane breakdown. I hear and understand concerns about these breakdowns. Some of the images and telephone calls from smart motorways highlighted in the media were utterly heart-breaking. But it is also worth recognising that live-lane breakdowns can and do happen on any road. They happen on smart motorways, yes, but also on conventional motorways, dual carriageways—which often do not have a hard shoulder—and blind corners in country lanes. They happen, so what do we do about them? We must do what we can to minimise their risks in the circumstances in which they occur. On smart motorways we have technology that can help reduce that risk. In all those other circumstances, we do not.
A regional traffic control centre is usually made aware of a vehicle stopped on a smart motorway either by an alert from a traffic flow system—they monitor the cars as they pass under the gantries—then verified by CCTV, which there is along the entire stretch of smart motorways, or by the driver themselves or a member of the public calling the police, who then immediately notify the system. On a smart motorway the red X is then activated to shut the lane, alerting drivers to the incident, and speed limits are put up to slow the approaching traffic. The system can also be used to create an emergency access lane, if needed.
This goes back to education again, does it not? Observing the red X is a key part of motorway safety. In partnership with the police, Highways England has issued more than 180,000 warning letters to drivers who incorrectly drove along a lane with a red X in a number of smart motorway locations. These letters are having a positive effect, but we need to get the red X up as quickly as possible. We need to reduce response times in setting the red X and the other traffic management systems that work with it.
Highways England has installed stopped-vehicle detection on two sections of the M25 and will shortly install it on part of the M3. I point out to noble Lords that stopped-vehicle detection is very useful but is not a silver bullet. As noble Lords will know, radar was built to detect moving vehicles—things that move either through the sky or along the ground. If something is stopped, radar is not necessarily 100% accurate. It can help, but more technology is coming down the track. Highways England is looking at image-based technology, which may also be able to help.
What does one do if a vehicle is stopped on a live lane? What happens next? I noted reports in the media that the AA will not let its patrols stop in live lanes to help stranded motorists. That is very good, because they are absolutely not expected to. Highways England worked closely with the entire recovery industry to develop guidance on safe recovery from smart motorways. Vehicle recovery operators are never expected to work in a live lane on a motorway—not just a smart motorway—unless the scene has already been made safe by traffic officers or the police. Throughout the design and development of smart motorways, there has been extensive consultation with the emergency services to ensure that they have safe and effective operating procedures. This includes getting a vehicle off the road and to a place of safety.
I note the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about electric vehicles. When I first heard this, I was absolutely astonished. Quite frankly, this is applicable not just to smart motorways but to every single road. We will need to be able to move electric vehicles, wherever they happen to stop or end their days. I assure her that I will now look into it with great gusto, provided I keep my job. Work is under way to look at short-term measures to make sure we can get electric vehicles off to places of safety as quickly as possible, on whichever road, because that certainly would be a large drawback to the introduction of electric vehicles.
Highways England signed a national agreement with the police, fire and ambulance services setting out the principles of operating smart motorways and responding to incidents, along with other regional operating agreements to cover the individual schemes within their areas. Even in heavy congestion, some traffic is usually able to pass the scene of an incident, creating enough space for drivers to pull over and allowing the emergency services to pass. If that does not work and there is a significant blockage, the police can access the incident from the other side.
A number of noble Lords mentioned near-misses. These figures have been bandied around. I wonder whether any noble Lords have looked into what these near-misses mean, what they are or where those figures came from. They are raw data and are probably correct, but there has been such an upturn since 2015 because there has been a massive increase in proactively reporting things that are called near-misses but might be very minor issues along the side of the road. None of the 1,485 incidents recorded on the M25 in the report resulted in any injuries at all.
I do not have long, so I will touch briefly on awareness. This all comes back to awareness. There is so much we must be doing to help our drivers drive safely—not just on smart motorways. I want our drivers to be driving more safely on every single road in our country. Anecdote and gut feel cannot be the main drivers of the critical decisions we face when it comes to road safety. We need to analyse the evidence.
As I mentioned, the evidence stock-take will serve as a significant measure to inform the public on how the Government will proceed with smart motorways. Safety on our roads is critical. We have an excellent record on road safety and our motorways are the safest roads, but still people die—around 1,500 a year. For as long as I am Roads Minister, that keeps me up at night.
Adoption Support Fund
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Russell of Liverpool
That this House takes note of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Adoption and Permanence’s Report Investing in families: the Adoption Support Fund beyond 2020, published in July 2019.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the usual channels and Cross-Bench colleagues for allowing me and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to have a third bite of the cherry with our debates, having fallen foul of the non-Prorogation and the general election. I declare my interests as a governor of Coram and as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Adoption and Permanence, whose report we are discussing this afternoon.
The adoption support fund, usually abbreviated to the ASF, was introduced in England in May 2015, championed by the then Minister for Children, Edward Timpson—happily re-elected to the House of Commons in December. His personal experience informed his belief in what the fund could achieve. He was brought up in a family with two adopted siblings and his extraordinary parents fostered an additional 90 children. Edward grew up with a deep understanding of trauma because he saw it unfolding all around him. The fund was specifically designed to find alternative and creative—I emphasise that—ways to enable families to deal with the effects of trauma on the behaviour and well-being of adopted children. It was set up with a five-year term, due to end this year.
As our report says, the fund has been, and is, a great success. I congratulate the Government and the Department for Education on making such a positive difference to families and children who were at, or near, breaking point. The Government have invested over £150 million, providing therapeutic support for more than 38,000 families. Since the cost of each child in the care of the state is around £34,000 per annum, one can do the maths: £1.3 billion for children in care, as opposed to eight and a half times less when children benefit from the therapies provided by the adoption support fund. How cost effective is that?
I was fortunate to be present at Coram for the launch of National Adoption Week last October, when the Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson—whom I see has retained his job—announced the extension of the fund to 2021, while also revealing his own personal commitment, having grown up in a family with a foster sibling,
So, the Government have a success on their hands. They have extended the fund for a further year and the department has been resolutely consistent in saying no more than that its future will be considered in the upcoming spending review. I shall try to articulate the case for its long-term continuation and measured expansion, and suggest how it can be even more successful in helping to mitigate the effects of trauma, and in so doing transform and improve the lives of adoptees and their families, saving the state a huge amount of money. To borrow from the words of Mark Antony: I come here to praise the Department for Education, not to bury it.
There are six key recommendations in the report. I assume that the department has studied these carefully so I shall not bore the Minister or the House by repeating them in detail. Instead, I will flag up some specific points for the Minister and the department. The first is prevention versus cure, or how to prevent trauma happening in the first place. Harriet Ward was one of the authors of the 2012 book, Safeguarding Babies and Very Young Children from Abuse and Neglect, which detailed the results from following the lives of a sample group of children at risk from birth to three years old. Of that sample, 66% were identified as being at risk before they had even been born. Of the two-thirds of the sample still with their families at age three, 43% were judged to be at significant risk of harm from their own parents. By age three, 50% of the children in this study displayed serious behavioural problems or developmental delay.
This is partly where trauma starts. I urge the Department for Education and the Department of Health to assess and potentially extend initiatives such as the Oxford Parents Under Pressure pathway, the London and Glasgow Infant and Family Team and the Norfolk Parent-Infant Mental Health Attachment Project, and to build the learnings from these into discussions during the spending review about how to present and/or mitigate the onset of trauma.
Secondly, it is time to reassess the target audience. Initially the fund focused on adoptive families, which subsequently extended to special guardianship families. A third group is kinship carers. One size does not fit all, but I urge the Government to develop their understanding of the needs of each group and to target those specific needs as much as possible. This could be achieved partly by providing more effective publicity and information about the availability of the fund, but one might consider renaming the fund so that it can reflect better its target audiences.
Thirdly, it would be good to understand the consequences of the fund’s success. It was designed to find alternative and creative ways of enabling adoptive families to deal with trauma, and its success has, in effect, created a substitute mental health service without normal governance and scrutiny. An unintended consequence is that some NHS child and adolescent mental health services—CAMHS—use the existence of the fund as a means of excluding adoptees from accessing those services. Can the department, with the Department of Health, please consider the best means of co-ordinating and clarifying services, so that children do not unintentionally suffer?
Fourthly, how do we ensure adequate and appropriate clinical input? How can we resource and embed this better to enable optimal evaluation of need and effective delivery of services? Can the department study best-practice organisations such as the Birmingham Children’s Trust, ably led by Andrew Christie, the chair of the Adoption and Special Guardianship Leadership Board? The trust provides a comprehensive and holistic process which analyses need, develops an individual plan for each client and then acts as the advocate for the family in its interactions with the fund.
Please could the department consider hiring and embedding in-house clinical experts within its own ASF team? Please could the department specify a requirement for Mott MacDonald, which does an excellent job of administering the fund on its behalf, to hire and embed clinical expertise within its application processing teams? Please consider recommending that every local authority should have a qualified, designated trauma lead who colleagues can refer to for advice.
Please review why voluntary adoption agencies are unable to apply to the fund directly, or at least consider the practical solution of allowing social workers to delegate applications to those agencies but with the final sign-off remaining with the designated social worker. The current lack of sufficient clinical experts to help social workers evaluate applications is placing an unfair and unreasonable burden on them. They are not clinical experts, so give them access to the real experts to ensure the children and young people get the appropriate assessment and therapeutic help.
Fourthly, how could we future-proof the fund? The fund was always intended to tap into, and to help stimulate, a market in therapeutic support outside the clinical mental health suite of services. As the fund has grown and broadened, assessing and focusing on what works best and what is worth experimenting with has become more challenging. The fund is currently assisted by the aforementioned Adoption and Special Guardianship Leadership Board and by the DfE, local authority and regional adoption authority user group.
Please could the department consider creating a specialist ASF advisory board which would be able to assess, advise and recommend on improvements and adjustments to the fund in real time? This could include creating a formal evaluation process for measuring effectiveness.
The organisations that provide and develop the therapies that the fund enables children and their families and guardians to access crave the degree of certainty that will encourage them to invest, innovate and expand. This can come only from confidence that the fund has long-term support.
The Minister will be pleased that I am the end of my wish list of questions. I thank Edward Timpson and his DfE team at the time of the fund’s launch for having had the courage and insight to create the fund. I thank Rachael Maskell, the chair of the APPG, for her passion, humanity and gentle but effective leadership; and give a big thank you to the team which supports the group and makes our work possible.
Above all, I thank the individuals and organisations which gave evidence to our inquiry. We received 1,600 responses, hearing from 247 children and young people, 1,212 parents and guardians, 115 therapists and 74 social workers. We are particularly grateful that the Department for Education participated in the inquiry and it was extremely helpful to hear directly from Christina Bankes, the deputy director of children in care and permanence.
Finally, I thank those who will speak in this afternoon’s debate. We are speaking on behalf of children and young people who have had, through absolutely no fault of their own, early life experiences which can blight their lives and the lives of those who love and care for them. Please listen to their voices and to their heartfelt thanks for what the fund is achieving. They are unanimous in asking for its continuation. I beg to move.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has obtained this debate and has set it out so admirably. I shall not repeat his well-made points and so I shall speak briefly. I am also grateful to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Adoption and Permanence for its persistence in supporting families and children involved in the adoption process.
Adoption procedures have improved greatly over many years. Adoption agencies have contributed to the dialogue and to the action on it. The adoption support fund, ASF, introduced in May 2015, was a welcome and important development.
As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, the all-party group is calling for a commitment from the Government to put the ASF on a longer-term basis until 2030. It also calls for more support for local authorities in taking on the administrative burden placed on them by the ASF.
Adoption has been on the agenda in your Lordships’ House and in Parliament generally for many years. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who cannot be here today, has wisely led many initiatives, drawing on a lot of experience of our systems of adoption care for children. I want to recall something she said on 16 May 2013 on a Motion to Take Note of the report of the Adoption Legislation Committee that she chaired. She said that
“we had very much in mind the right of the child to be brought up in his or her birth family, whenever possible, and the right of … children to respect for their family life … sadly, not all children are able to remain with their birth families. The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration.”—[Official Report, 16/5/13; col. 594.]
So it is, of course. The noble and learned Baroness had written earlier of the importance of post-adoption support to families. She wrote, very tellingly, that the committee realised that implementing the recommendations
“will take time, commitment and money”.
She went on to say that that money was well spent in providing children with loving, caring homes and keeping them safe by means of adoption. How true, and how much worse the situation would be for children being cared for without structures and funding to enable them to thrive. That is what this debate will emphasise.
The Children and Families Act 2014 was thoroughly debated in your Lordships’ House. It covered a number of issues related to vulnerable children, including adoption and children in care. It put the best interests of children at the heart of decision-making. I repeat that that does not come cheap, but it is vital if we are to support children who may be in serious trouble and who may cause serious trouble without intervention, such as the ASF. This House has always been supportive of doing the best for children, and that tradition is carried on in today’s debate.
I am pleased to see that children were consulted in the APPG report. The messages from children in the report are moving and powerful, such as that the fund
“has helped me in tough situations”,
and
“I learned to calm my body down”
and
“I don’t know where I would have been today without it. The fund has helped me stop doing drugs, being violent, feeling suicidal and self-harming.”
I hope that such comments and the report will convince the Government that the ASF is essential to support adoptive children and families. I go back to the regular plea to the Government from so many of us: to spend money on early intervention rather than waiting for problems to build up and possibly become out of control. Not only is it humane to provide such early intervention, it also saves a great deal of money in the long run in relation to anti-social behaviour, educational achievement and health outcomes. Some 79% of parents have said that the ASF is meeting a need not found anywhere else.
I want to turn briefly to the evaluation of the ASF in 2019. I found it very interesting. First, it recorded that the fund has clearly been a positive force in relation to child development, including behaviour, family functioning and the well-being of adoptive parents. Parental comments in the evaluation are significant and indicate a need for more therapeutic support; respite support; more flexibility in the scope of the fund, such as links with education; and improvements in the response of social workers and the fair access limit, which makes some types of support unavailable. Do we have up-to-date figures on uptake of the fund, and by whom? Are there geographical differences? Is take-up more prevalent in certain parts of the country than others? If so, why? Are there socio- economic differences? Are some people—special guardians, for example—missing out? I am aware that the fund is available only where the child was looked after immediately prior to the special guardianship order.
I want to give a specific example. I became aware of the needs of grandparents who care for children some years ago when I was involved in a drugs organisation. I learned that grandparents may take over looking after children when the parents cannot cope, are in prison or dead. Grandparents may become special guardians. The need for support for grandparents in these circumstances is enormous. Some are looking after more than one grandchild, and grandparents are ageing. Many do not take up special guardianship. Many find the bureaucracy of filling in forms, applying for support and seeking help daunting. A grandmother once said to me: “I should be reading to my grandson rather than spending hours filling in forms.” Kinship care is often very successful, with good outcomes, but many such carers feel overwhelmed by administrative detail and form-filling.
Are local authorities given the means to make adoptive parents aware of the ASF, and to support them? Who else promotes awareness and supports applications? I repeat my question to the Minister: what detail do we have on the take-up of the ASF? Is this an area to look at and improve on? If he cannot provide an answer today, maybe he could write to me and others speaking in this debate.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the adoption support fund. I hope that our concerns will be noted by the Government, and that the good work of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and his colleagues in the APPG for Adoption and Permanence is appreciated. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, I add my congratulations and thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for securing this debate. I declare an interest: mine is one of the 50,000 or so families who have received support from the adoption support fund. I am immensely grateful for that support. It came at a very difficult time after the death of my wife, my children’s adoptive mother, six years ago, when they were very young. It was invaluable. That is the most important thing I have to say this afternoon. It is a privilege to be able to speak from first-hand experience as an adoptive parent and as someone who has benefited immeasurably from the ASF. I am no longer in receipt of the fund but I offer my heartfelt thanks—to the Government for this excellent initiative, to the all-party parliamentary group for its excellent report and to Home for Good, the wonderful charity involved in compiling that report. I add my voice to those asking for the ASF to be continued after the spending review so that others are able to access the crucial help that it gave us.
Being an adoptive parent has brought me untold joy, but the great demands of being such a parent need to be recognised and appropriate support given. My children are not among the three-quarters of adopted children who, according to the Department for Education, have been removed from their birth families because of abuse and neglect. That heartbreaking statistic brings home how vital it is fully to comprehend the necessity for support of the sort we are discussing. That said, it is also crucial to be aware that all adoptive children will face challenges as a result of what adoption specialists term “the primal wound”—being separated from someone to whom they have been attached, not just psychologically but physiologically in the womb.
It is not surprising, therefore, that adopted children and young people are statistically more likely to be involved in the criminal justice system and to need mental health support; the complications that some adopted children face at school and at home are very great. We should note that—as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, intimated—any such support will enable considerable long-term savings for the Government in the future by reducing the child’s likelihood of exclusion and engagement with the police.
Feedback from parents and children who have accessed the scheme, like me, has been overwhelmingly positive. According to the Adoption Barometer survey, 94% of those who received support from the fund are likely to apply again in the future, with four out of five parents who accessed it saying that it had a significant positive impact on their child and family situation. Such positive feedback makes it clear that for many parents the fund is a vital service. As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, noted, the charity Investing in Families reported that 79% of parents state that the fund is
“meeting a need which cannot be met elsewhere”.
Mental health and family support should be easily accessible to all children and parents, but in this case the vulnerability of the children in question means that the fund is a vital source of support, not only for the health, happiness and well-being of the child but for the parents, many of whom are unprepared for the realities of the complexity that often surrounds the adoption of a child. Many parents go into adoption full of good will but without the skills or training to support their child, and may have only basic knowledge of their child’s background or psychological history.
The ASF not only equips children with the tools to help to look after their own mental health and process their past but equips parents will the skills and confidence needed to support their child. As a mental health practitioner in East Sussex explained, nearly all the parents they came into contact with
“underestimated just how demanding some of these children’s needs were and found themselves at a complete loss on how to parent such challenging behaviour.”
However, the practitioner went on to say:
“Once the family receive therapeutic services it opens up all kinds of opportunities for them. In addition, family life can slowly return to some ‘normality’ once adoptive parents have the skills, knowledge and support for their child.”
The adoption support fund has been found in multiple surveys to prevent or reduce the risk of adoption breakdown. It hardly needs to be said that such breakdown is devastating for everyone involved, particularly the children.
As one might expect, and as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, observed, there is room for improvement in the operation of the fund. Most significant is the impact of long waiting lists, coupled with a general lack of knowledge of its existence. However, it has been working well. In anticipation of this debate, I was in touch with a very experienced and well-respected clinical psychologist in Worcestershire, Dr Kim Golding, who has been working with and supporting families of looked-after and adopted children for over 30 years. She is an expert in the sort of therapy that we received, dyadic development therapy, an excellent and effective intervention. She states that she has witnessed at first hand
“how this fund has helped these families get the support that they need.”
Dr Golding stresses the importance of understanding the needs of adoptive families, not just the children in question. When many think of adoption, they envision a fairytale ending to a story. The reality is of course very different. As she observes:
“Adopting a child from care means adopting a child who comes with a history of trauma, separation and loss of birth family. The impact of this experience is felt by the child and all family members. This can make the parenting of this child extremely challenging. Ordinary parenting does not come near to meeting the complex needs of a child who is grieving the loss of previous parents (birth and foster parents); who has learnt not to trust in the parenting that they are now receiving and who anticipates that they are going to lose this too, often with a sense of identity formed around them being a bad kid who somehow deserved what has happened to them. This can lead to a range of challenging behaviours”
and vulnerabilities. Dr Golding stresses the need for “wraparound support”, where packages of intervention are focused on, rather than single instances of therapy or counselling. The nuanced history of many children in care and adoption means that there are no easy fixes. She says:
“Interventions are needed in a timely manner and for as long as needed”,
and should involve a range of teams and specialists working in collaboration to create and implement a package of interventions for families. She states:
“The impact of trauma does not resolve quickly, and it can reassert itself at critical developmental stages throughout a child and adult’s life.”
This longer-term intervention should be supported and recognised as vital.
Additionally, as I have intimated, Dr Golding says:
“Such therapy will only be helpful if the support needs of the whole family are also met. Therapy and support is needed for the whole family and not just the child.”
As a judge observed at the time of our first adoption, conception is often a biological accident but adoption is always an act of love. That act of love is undertaken by adoptive parents for the child on behalf of all society. They deserve the support of all society as they live it out.
Lord Triesman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have a similar interest to that of the right reverend Prelate to declare. I am blessed to be the father of an adopted and wholly remarkable young girl, who brings us huge joy. Like the right reverend Prelate, at least in respect of one aspect of her care, we have benefited from the fund’s existence. I know exactly what he is talking about. I also declare an interest as a member of the all-party group and of various self-organised adoption groups—the sort of groups that most adoptive parents find themselves in at one time or another.
I spent some years involved with and learning about adoption. I found that there is always something completely new to learn. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool for his outstanding leadership at Coram and for his ability to marshal and explain data that appears obscure to many people but is handled by him with a great deal of elegance and directness, which I value enormously. Although he cannot be here today, I also thank my noble friend Lord Listowel—he has also been a great force in this type of discussion or discussions about children in general—and I thank the other members of the all-party group. They are colleagues of great knowledge and commitment; I am honoured to be associated with them, as I am honoured to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester’s fine contribution.
If noble Lords will bear with me, for the next minute or so I want to try to describe why some of the things that happen feel so difficult. About 20 years ago, I chaired a national inquiry into housing benefit. I recall that inquiry today because, in it, we took evidence on the administration of housing benefit from more than 400 local authorities, from recipients and from those in the voluntary sector. Almost all of the local authorities had developed their own procedures. What they did was completely unintelligible—as unintelligible to them as it was to me. They had managed to wrap it in completely unintelligible language as well. Some of it was mysteriously linked to the procedures in other local authority departments with which they in housing benefit had never spoken—even when we found that their offices were next door to one another. Those other departments, which administered things such as free school meals or whatever, also spoke in equally mysterious codes and had equally labyrinthine processes.
I mention all this because, with the housing benefit, nobody—including its Minister—understood what was intended for some of the most deprived and struggling of their fellow citizens. Benefit recipients and authorities —everyone on both sides of the process—described their experience as like wandering in a strange land through a pea-soup fog. So I asked the inquiry to start again. It would assume the role of an out-of-work single mum of an adopted child in Easterhouse in Glasgow. Who and why on earth would anyone make her life more difficult and more uncertain? The inquiry would do its job in my view only if it could set out the value of housing benefit and the problems that it was supposed to address, so that we and that theoretical mum could understand it at the end of the process. Of course, we failed, but it was worth trying.
Adoption has many of the same characteristics. All the data speak to educational and developmental problems which we need to address. It will not be easy; the issues of attachment are complex. The desperately poor start in life that some children have because of drinking, addiction and instability on the part of their birth parents has already been described—fortunately, I have not experienced it. Those parents were never chosen by the child, but it is in their shadow that the child then lives. The overlapping conditions, the spectrums, can be punishing for any child and confusing for their adoptive parents and schools.
The multiple interventions for someone whom we really can help far better reminds me of that housing benefit experience. The harder your life is, the higher the hurdles we seem to erect for them to clamber over. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, wisely mentioned evidence from children given to the all-party group. They were able to explain their challenges and their appreciation of the adoption support fund. The higher the hurdles, the less resilience and sense of agency we provide for a child. Where we need scaffolding, we run the risk of far too little of it—far too little support for both the kids and their adults at home or in school. Parents and schools need systematic and coherent guidance; otherwise, it is simply too hard, too bewildering and too dispiriting. You want to do better for the child, but you find that you cannot.
It is not my aim today to be negative or to feel dispirited—I am in the same mood as my noble friend Lord Russell on this—but I just want us to do better if we can, very much in the spirit of Edward Timpson. I readily acknowledge the advances that have been made by Her Majesty’s Government, the value of the adoption support fund and the positive ministerial approach of Damian Hinds and of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, in this House. I acknowledge, too, the interventions of a former member of the Government, Andrea Leadsom—who I gather is not a member anymore. Theirs have been key contributions, as have been those from opposition leadership, including Lucy Powell MP and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in our own House.
There is much that has been done which we can admire, but the job is at best part done. What might we learn now, guided by the report that we have in front of us, by leading headteachers such as Stuart Guest in Birmingham and Robin Warren in Camden and not least by the remarkable and unflinching parents who came to the all-party group to give evidence or who write to me—and, I suspect, to others in this House—more or less daily? First, the value and success of the adoption support fund are undeniable. Its continuation was an excellent step. I know all the arguments about spending reviews—as a Minister, I have made most of them in my time and usually felt completely dispirited by being asked to do so—but a childhood is a long-term investment. Being a citizen is a long-term investment. Funding should be a long-term commitment. If we were talking about dialysis, for example, no one would dream of saying, “We’ll consider access to machines just for a year or two at a time.” The case for doing it in the long term has been made enormously powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and others today.
Given what we know about childhood mental health and diminishing personal resilience—subjects on which Matt Hancock MP and others have spoken eloquently —we know that we must back long-term remedial approaches as surely as we know we will face the long-term costs or the dire alternatives if we fail to treat kidney disease properly. No long-term plan is not a long-term option. What guarantees can the Minister give today, aside from saying that there is a spending review, which we all know?
I mention this only briefly, because I do not think it is the meat of this, but can the Minister also give some further guarantees to ensure that children adopted from care abroad will have the same education rights as kids adopted from care in the UK? He may respond by saying that he now knows that there is Private Member’s Bill before the House, but it would have been so much better if the Government had done it themselves.
The mind-boggling complexity that I referred to earlier relates to the fact that so many adopted children receive multiple diagnoses. The issues of attachment are often accompanied by sensory disorders, which may present as autism, attention duration problems, DCD, dyslexia and so on. Some kids may also, on top of that, be naughty. These are all things that happen in normal life. In the literature, misdiagnosis of a condition is frequent. Most significantly for today’s debate, it is the attachment issues that are considered last or not at all in that general mix. Parents may know and say that it is an issue to which they attach the greatest importance, given how much they know their child, but there are too few experienced school staff to recognise the issue properly. Exclusion tends to emphasise a breakdown in attachment. The evidence on rates of exclusion for adopted children should ring every alarm bell for us. I can say with certainty that it does for the parents who write to me.
I remain concerned about the general resilience and confidence of children—and of many of their teachers. You do not have to be a child with a problem to know that there are many challenges in life, but you may need a toolkit to handle the issues or the stress. They need to have those to become autonomous people.
Notwithstanding all that, there is a special and particular benefit that could be achieved. In our debate on 14 May, I suggested that a specific champion for adopted children be designated. The noble Lord, Lord Agnew of Oulton, made a response which is of course in Hansard from that day, saying that there were new systems in place and the Government needed to evaluate them. His officials may be learning from the initiative and studying it closely, but I tell noble Lords today that the overwhelming flow of parents’ reports that I get and the generous time that some schools have given me tell me that it is not working well. A qualified trauma lead in each local authority with real expertise would be a good start, as has been suggested. Some virtual heads do exist, but in many areas they do not. This is not yet an answer. I ask the Minister to return to the idea of having a champion who argues the case consistently and knits together the evidence.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I rise as perhaps the only person in this debate who does not have an interest to declare and does not speak with expertise on the matter. Normally in your Lordships’ House, this would be something to be avoided and I did think long and hard before I put my name down to speak, but it was clear that it was important to have somebody from these Benches speak in this debate. The issue of adoption and, in particular, the adoption support fund, is not a party-political matter, and the APPG is obviously cross-party. Equally, it is important that your Lordships be aware that these Benches take the matter very seriously. As my colleagues who had been part of the APPG and contributed to the report could not be here—my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lady Hamwee, and Norman Lamb, who was in the other place—I put my name forward to speak.
As is conventional in such circumstances, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on pressing for the debate and being third time lucky in securing time for it today. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group for putting together such an extraordinary inquiry, bringing together so many people and getting not just adults to respond but nearly 300 children and young people: so often when your Lordships’ House and the other place do inquiries, whether through all-party parliamentary groups or committees, we talk to the great and the good and we invite people whom we know are experts. In the context of adoption, the experts in many ways are those who have adopted children or who are themselves adopted. The fact that the all-party parliamentary group was able to hear from so many young people is fascinating and very important.
I note that the inquiry explicitly said that it sought to examine the lived experience of families and young people impacted by the fund and to improve the understanding of key issues within Parliament. Therefore, it is particularly important that this debate is happening today and that Parliament, even if these Benches are not very full, is at least able to debate the topic and to have the matter recorded in Hansard. It is also very important for those of us who do not have direct experience of adoption to be able to hear the moving testimony of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester and the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, because the ability to understand in more detail how the adoption support fund can work, not just in theory but in practice, is hugely important.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, in his excellent opening speech raised the detailed questions that need to be considered, yet it is important to rehearse some of the issues that we hope the Minister will be able to respond to. In particular, some of the key issues relate to funding. We are due to have a Budget in four weeks’ time. We have a brand-new, untried and untested Chancellor of the Exchequer as of today. Normally, it would be appropriate for the Minister to respond to questions and, if he is not able to respond today, to write to us with the answers. On this occasion I suggest that not only do we ask the Minister to go back to his own department to look for answers, but perhaps it would be timely to see whether the incoming Chancellor of the Exchequer can be persuaded to look at the long-term funding of the adoption support fund. At the moment it is funded through to 2021. It has been going since 2015. The APPG suggested that it should be funded until 2030. So far there has been an additional year’s funding, to 2021.
Year-by-year funding is not desirable and we have already heard this afternoon about the difficulties of funding and of dealing with forms that have to be filled in regularly. Like the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, I have had experience of local government finance, not so much in terms of housing benefit, but I had responsibility for grants going to voluntary sector, where each year forms had to be filled in. Every year, organisations would get deeply concerned about whether they would have their grant renewed. Usually, they were told that their grant would be frozen in real terms. They might see a cut in their grant. That was destabilising and created uncertainty for voluntary organisations. How much more difficult is it for families who have to apply for funding every year and are never sure whether the funding they receive will be ongoing?
Therefore, my first question for the Minister is: what do the Government propose by way of longer-term funding for the ASF? Will Her Majesty’s Government be able to make a commitment up to 2030, as the APPG suggested?
Beyond that, could they look at the rules and regulations that are in place? A centralised system, meaning there is not a postcode lottery, is clearly important. Ensuring that adopted children and young people and their families can have access wherever they are in the country is vital. As we have seen in the report, almost everyone who has had access to the fund has said how beneficial it has been and how they have received support they would not otherwise have had. How much better would it be if decisions could be taken not simply on a year-by-year basis but according to clinical need? If clinicians believe that someone would benefit from therapy for 18 months, two years or three years, or at least beyond a year, surely that should be granted without people having to go back and fill in forms annually. Could that be considered?
It is clear from the report that social workers who are supposed to give advice and support families in completing forms are in some ways overburdened and, in some cases, feel that they do not have the relevant expertise and clinical knowledge to give the necessary advice. Could the Government consider giving additional support and training to social workers? Might they even put in additional funding support to ensure that the social worker’s job becomes easier? Might they also consider allowing voluntary adoption agencies to apply directly to the fund? All these things should be additional funding to support the administration. The funding should not simply be taken out of the ASF, reducing what is available to families, but rather a way of strengthening the fund and ensuring the great benefits that have already been brought about can continue.
I thank the APPG for all the work it has done and reiterate how important it is for the fund to continue and for the Government to ensure that families can be supported as far as possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said in his opening remarks, prevention is in many ways the most important thing. It is so much better to ensure that children and young people who have been taken out of traumatic conditions are enabled to come to terms with their past, engage with their present and live the best lives they can. We as a society owe it to them to enable them to do so fully and with our support.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, not just for securing this debate three times but for his tireless efforts on behalf of children and families engaged in adoption and other forms of permanence. We are also indebted to all those who contributed to the APPG’s inquiry and to those who prepared the report that followed. It stands as an example of the very best work of which our all-party groups are capable.
We are now approaching the conclusion of the adoption support fund’s first five years. I use that terminology advisedly, because I believe it is simply inconceivable that the Government would, in 14 months’ time, when the current funding runs out, choose to bring it to an end. Such has been its impact on around 40,000 families with adopted children that denying them the vital therapeutic services that the fund enables would be an act of vandalism and an abdication of responsibility that I simply cannot imagine any Government contemplating, not even one as unpredictable as this.
Adoption plays a crucial role in providing support for some of our most vulnerable children, alongside special guardianship, foster care and residential care. It is much to be welcomed that special guardianship families were added to those able to access the fund. Those of us who have never had any direct experience of what it means either to be adopted or to adopt a child cannot readily appreciate the day-to-day existence of families who have taken on that onerous but important responsibility, so it is extremely valuable to have access to the adoption barometer, a comprehensive stocktake of the experiences of adoptive families in the UK during a single year undertaken by Adoption UK.
The most recent barometer reflected experiences in 2018 and was published in July last year. It was based on detailed feedback from 3,500 adoptive parents representing all stages of the process, from approvals and matching to families with adopted young adults. Their views, concerns and experiences are placed firmly in the context of adoption policy and practice in each of the four nations of the UK, with the aim of learning what is working well and what needs to be improved. The data revealed that the majority of families are facing significant challenges and, for too many, the support that would enhance their ability to provide for their adopted children is often difficult to access, with potentially damaging consequences.
The barometer’s conclusions are divided into five categories and one in particular is germane to this debate. It concerns established adoptive families, who were asked to give their assessment both of national policy for established families and of adopter experiences. As regards England, in the first category the assessment was “fair” and in the second it was “poor”. That lays bare the extent of the stress, the strain and, indeed, the frustration that adoptive families feel as a result of the patchy overall support that they receive. My noble friend Lord Triesman—I refuse to address him in any other way despite the fact that he now sits on the Cross Benches—spoke with great authority born of personal family experience of such difficulties. I also pay tribute to his campaign for children adopted from abroad, on whose behalf he has achieved equality of treatment, which is much to be welcomed.
One of the few things that make adoptive families want to carry on—indeed, make it possible for them to carry on—is the adoption support fund, which provides the therapeutic services that have now become a major part of the support available to families. At the same time as the adoption barometer was published, so too was the report of the APPG for Adoption and Permanence. It is a substantial body of work and it is fitting that it should be the subject of debate in your Lordships’ House. The inquiry explored how the fund might be improved so that it better meets the needs of families who benefit from it. I was privileged to attend both the hearings that formed the major part of the inquiry and heard some powerful evidence from both practitioners and parents. The view was very clearly articulated that the fund simply must receive sufficient resources to ensure its long-term future. Those giving evidence to the all-party group warned of catastrophic effects if that were not the case.
As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, the Department for Education gave evidence in the form of a senior member of staff, who said that in the department’s view, the fund has been “a real success”. I quote that with confidence because it appears in my contemporaneous notes of the hearing. That was most encouraging to hear at that time and I am sure the Minister has been made aware of it.
The inquiry report outlined six recommendations, all well-reasoned and eminently reasonable. I will not repeat them because other noble Lords have already done so, but I encourage the Minister to ensure that they are acted upon by the Government. The first called for the fund to be continued until 2030 at least, and that should be the minimum to which the Minister commits the Government today. As others have said, we know that we are going to hear that the spending review —whenever that may be—will reveal all and no promises can be made until then. That argument might have been plausible under the previous Government, but the current regime frankly has such a robust majority that it could legislate for an eighth day of the week should it so desire and there would be nothing that Parliament could do to stop it. Therefore, the Minister should at the very least tell the House—as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—what he will personally be arguing for with Treasury Ministers in relation to the fund in the meetings that will take place in preparation for spending review decisions. Is he sufficiently convinced of the vital need for the services provided by the fund to argue for its permanence? If not, why not?
Of course, we do not know whether the Minister will retain his position in the reshuffle. I personally hope that he does, and we understand that the Secretary of State has held on to his place. In the four and a half years that I have been in my post, there have been four Secretaries of State for Education. For the sake of the sector as a whole, some stability is certainly welcome. There have also been four Ministers of State with responsibility for adoption in that period—five if you include the one currently providing maternity cover for Kemi Badenoch. Today the Universities Minister changed for the fifth time within that period, even though the incumbent was an academic, so stability is not a word that echoes in the corridors of the Department for Education.
As the APPG report demonstrates, the adoption support fund has provided life-changing therapeutic support for thousands of families. Indeed, as others have said, nearly 80% of parents said that the fund met needs which, crucially, could not be met elsewhere. Perhaps even more importantly, as parents told the inquiry, the support accessed via the fund has helped them avoid a potential family breakdown or disruption. That view was echoed in many of the 1,600 responses to the inquiry—a remarkable number—and it is perhaps the fund’s greatest strength that it has proved to be a lifeline for so many families, delivering specialist therapeutic support that is not otherwise accessible.
But the report makes it clear that, as my noble friend Lady Massey highlighted, the bureaucracy involved in applying can be daunting for some parents. Despite positivity about the benefits of the fund, and modest, sustained improvements in outcomes, the level of difficulties faced within the families of survey respondents remains very high, reflecting the ongoing need for support in most cases. Suggested improvements included broadening the scope of the fund to include additional types of support, improving co-ordination with education services—a vital aspect—and loosening financial restrictions to permit greater quantities of support to be accessed. I hope the Minister will feel able to comment on these, given the authority which the report carries.
The Government should acknowledge the fact that the fund has prevented or reduced the risk of adoption breakdown, because that underlines how it saves the taxpayer much greater costs further down the line. Last year, a report by the University of Kent—which I think the noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned—found that the cost to the state of having a child in care is approximately £34,000 per year. If just 10% of the 40,000 children with families who accessed the adoption support fund had been unable to sustain the adoption without that support, the consequent cost to the taxpayer of those children returning to care would have been in excess of £125 million—each year.
The fund’s budget for the year 2020-21 will be £45 million, which is the highest it will have been in its by then six-year existence. So I say to the Minister: please do not let us hear of financial considerations regarding the future of the fund, because it provides astoundingly good value for money. Indeed, the Government would be guilty of gross profligacy with public resources were they to decide to end the fund—or even underfund it—and revert to the status quo as it was in 2015. Of course, not all families would return their adopted children to care, but I have already quoted the cost of just one in 10 doing so, and the figure could be much higher on an annual basis than has been paid out by the fund since 2015. Quite simply, then, guaranteeing the fund’s long-term future is a no-brainer. What possible argument can there be for failing to do so, short of an equivalent alternative scheme? Answers to that should be sent on a postcard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sajid J—oh, wait a minute, Mr Javid stood up to the Prime Minister, so he is now history. Clearly, his successor, Rishi Sunak, is much more pliable.
As I said, the case for making the adoption support fund permanent is unanswerable. I will conclude by quoting one of the adoptive children who benefit so much from the support that the fund provides. The APPG inquiry asked children and young people what they would like to say to the Minister for Children and Families about the adoption support fund. I found the most telling response to be this one:
“Good support is when someone understands and listens to you—all the different bits of you, not just the bits showing on the outside.”
That voice speaks eloquently but with great power, and must be listened to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for securing this important debate to discuss the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Adoption and Permanence’s Investing in Families report on the adoption support fund beyond 2020. I am also grateful to him for his constructive and helpful approach.
The ASF was introduced in 2015 to improve access to much-needed therapeutic support for adopters and their children. It is reassuring to hear that those who participated in the inquiry think that it is largely achieving that aim. Tens of thousands of families have been able to access support that they would not have been able to without the fund.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, queried the longer-term funding outlook for this success story. The Government have increased funding year on year; it has twice the original budget now and that will rise further next year to £45 million. Already, £140 million has been released to support families.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is worried about some of the bureaucracy. It is absolutely part of our approach to continually challenge the structure of these sorts of arrangements, and if any noble Lord participating in this debate has any specific concerns about excessive bureaucracy, asking a question several times or generally being inhospitable to people, I would be pleased to hear of it. It is a personal mission of mine to try to simplify all the government bureaucracy I deal with and make it accessible to as many people as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also asked about the annual application requirements. It is something we are going to look into beyond 2021. We originally introduced a maximum of 12 months’ funding to ensure the appropriateness of the therapy received and that we are linked to the health service. Another point for the noble Lord, Lord Watson, who is always a hawk on funding, is that today we announced a substantial local authority settlement. It has gone up from £46.2 billion to £49.2 billion for 2021. That is a 4.4% increase and the biggest year-on-year increase in a decade.
The APPG report asked about future funding, which we have just discussed. We committed in our manifesto that adoption would remain a key area and the adoption support fund would continue. As noble Lords are aware, all departmental spending after 2021 is subject to a future spending funding settlement. My right honourable friend the new Chancellor of the Exchequer will be very busy on that from today, but we recognise that this fund is making a difference.
None the less, in line with the approach taken last year, I confirm that, from July 2020, families will be able to start nine months of therapeutic support, even if it does not end until after March 2021. This transitional arrangement will continue until the outcome of the spending review is confirmed. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, rightly says that the feedback on the fund has been good. The evaluation of the fund found that the majority—84% of parents surveyed—felt that the ASF had helped their child and made the adoption placement more stable and less likely to break down. It showed that there has been a statistically significant improvement in adopted children’s behaviour and mental health. This includes parents’ understanding of their children’s needs and meaningful improvements in parents’ well-being.
I am particularly pleased that the report draws heavily on the lived experience of children, young people and their families, social workers and therapists. It is always important to hear how the policies we make affect those on the ground. Ninety per cent of children and young people said that the fund had helped them significantly. It is encouraging to hear that the fund has literally been life-changing for many young people and their families.
The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, asked what the Government are doing about the problems of children with potential multiple diagnoses. It is important that children who have experienced trauma and loss have access to high-quality specialist assessments that result in an agreed support plan. In recognition of this, we have made an additional £2,500 per child available this year, through the ASF, for specialist assessments. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, also asks about overseas adoption. We have included new duties for virtual school heads, specifically to look after that cohort of vulnerable children. In 2016, we extended the eligibility of the adoption support fund to families who had adopted from overseas.
The report shows how the fund has been working and what more we can do to improve it. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, asked about take-up of the fund. So far this year, 88% of applications have related to adopted children and 12% to special guardianship children who were previously in care. We have seen an almost fourfold increase in applications involving special guardianship children since the fund was opened to them in 2016. The fund does not collect data on income. However, I will write to the noble Baroness with any more detail we have in the department.
The APPG has identified a number of areas that are being considered carefully, as we think about the fund’s future in the context of the spending review process. The noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Watson, raised a few of these issues today, and I will attempt to give the House some initial views. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, stressed the need to improve prevention in families, and I wholly agree. This links to comments from the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, on general improvements and is one of the purposes of our £84 million innovation programme. We certainly do not intend to stand still in any of these areas.
I will not be able to cover all the recommendations, but I can assure the House that they are all being considered. We are taking immediate action on some of them. For example, we are increasing awareness of the fund among eligible special guardianship families and an information leaflet that has been developed in partnership with the Family Rights Group, Adoption UK and Home for Good will be launched shortly. This will be made available for all local authorities to share with the families they are working with.
On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, about extending access to the fund to new groups of children, we will look at the report’s recommendations. However, we do not want to duplicate support that should already be provided elsewhere—for example, when a child is in the care system. We will have to consider the consequences for the fund’s budget of any extension to new groups, and that is why we will consider those issues as part of the forthcoming spending review. The noble Lord also raised the issue of establishing a board of clinicians in the Department for Education to provide clinical oversight of the support provided by the fund. We have always consulted clinicians on what therapies can be provided and we will carefully consider whether setting up a new board would be helpful in that process.
Ensuring that the application process is as streamlined as possible has been a priority for us. The number of applications has quadrupled in the five years since the launch of the fund. Recently we put in place a new, improved application system designed in conjunction with feedback from users, but I also refer to my earlier points on continually challenging that process.
Our annual survey of local authorities about the system showed that 78% are satisfied or very satisfied with it as compared with just 26% last year, which is an impressive 300% improvement. Another issue raised in the report is that of the delays in getting initial assessments completed or services in place. These issues are being addressed through the regional adoption agencies. The report rightly identifies that the fund alone cannot meet the needs of all families. It should form part of the support offer for children and families. We agree that more work is needed to ensure that a genuine multi-agency approach is taken when providing support.
The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, mentioned siloing. This is a problem across the whole of government, but I am delighted to report that we are seeing growing success through the regional adoption agencies. We now have 22 up and running, and between them they cover 109 local authorities. We are actively working with the remaining 45 or so to encourage them to join in and participate.
This debate has highlighted the success of the fund since its launch five years ago. It also highlights the need for practice around the fund to continue to evolve and improve. Nationally, we will endeavour to increase awareness among special guardians, and as I said earlier, we are already taking action to address this.
Lastly, I want to take this opportunity to look at unregulated settings, which is a key issue for some children who remain in care. These can be an important step towards independence for older children, but we are concerned that they are not always good enough. That is why yesterday the Secretary of State published a consultation to invite views on a set of new measures. The proposals include introducing new checks and balances into the system, including national standards for providers and measures to drive up the quality of provision. We are keen to hear views on these proposals and the consultation will be open until 8 April.
I was certainly very moved to hear the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester about his personal experience of the fund. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, was right to end his comments by reminding us that these children did not choose their circumstances, so we must do everything possible to improve their lives.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. We may be few in number but we speak for an awful lot of children and families who are not able to reside on these red Benches, albeit that I gather that we may have a few new arrivals imminently. The Minister commented that I had taken a positive approach in my speech. I return the compliment and thank him for being unusually positive and even effusive in his comments about the fund. I think that the department really does deserve a pat on the back—I am looking at the advisers in the Box—for having been responsible for a true, apolitical success which is making an enormous difference to people who need and deserve help.
I thank the right reverend Prelate in particular for taking part. He is a living example of the danger of finding oneself sitting opposite me at lunch. We started a conversation about something quite different. Once he had found out a bit about me and I had discovered about his personal experience, he very kindly altered his diary to be with us this afternoon. We are all enormously grateful to him for giving us his direct, personal experience.
This subject deeply affects a lot of people—often people you do not necessarily know have these issues. I was contacted this afternoon by an adoptive parent who works down the other end for quite a well-known opposition MP. She called me today to say, “I think there is a debate today. Is that true?” I said yes, and asked her, “Is there anything you would like me to say?” She simply said, “What I would like you to say is that if it hadn’t been for the fund, my family would have had adoption breakdown. I think we would have lost our child, and we might well have lost our marriage.” One can have no better celebration of the fund’s success than that. With that, I wish everybody a therapeutic Recess.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 14) Order 2019
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Orders laid before the House on 14, 28 and 31 October 2019 and 17 January be approved.
Relevant documents: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Session 2019, 3rd and 4th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2019, 1st and 3rd Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the first instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 11 February.