House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
The UK Government work in 35 low and middle-income countries to implement legal, regulatory and policy reforms to make it easy for business, including from the UK, to operate. Business-enabling environment reform was also discussed at the UK-Africa investment summit, which secured commercial deals between UK companies and African partners worth more than £6.5 billion.
Gareth Bacon
Does the Minister agree that now we have formally left the European Union we have an exciting opportunity to build on our historic ties with the Commonwealth and use close business links to help developing countries create wealth?
Nigel Adams
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He makes a good point. The Government are committed to working with our Commonwealth partners to support and deepen intra-Commonwealth trade, to improve the business environments in Commonwealth countries to enable them to be more globally competitive, and to facilitate the economic empowerment of women and young people by providing more business and educational opportunities. He will have an opportunity on Monday to take part in the Commonwealth debate.
Nigel Adams
Indeed. This is a great opportunity for constituencies across all the nations of the UK. Leaving the EU provides an opportunity to explore the best ways to develop our trade and investment relationships across Africa. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) want to intervene? The trade connect programme, announced at the Africa investment summit, will support African businesses to increase their presence in international markets while supporting UK firms to source products. This will benefit UK customers with more choice and quality and lower prices.
Greg Smith
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments on the success of the Africa investment summit. Can he update the House on how we can further strengthen our economic partnerships with African nations?
Nigel Adams
I certainly can. My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are working with African countries to promote mutual prosperity. This incorporates a range of initiatives to increase trade and investment, including a new growth gateway, which will enable businesses to access the UK Government’s trade, investment and finance offer for Africa all in one place.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
All of us should be truly proud of our contributions to international development, yet the opening questions demonstrate the dangerous direction in which many in the Tory party are looking to take aid spending. The Department for International Development does not exist to increase the size of our business abroad, and nor is it part of the Department for International Trade. Indeed, the public good will and trust in the Department has been because every penny spent has been on helping the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. As the Government undertake their integrated review, will the Secretary of State reaffirm the Government’s commitment to a fully independent Department, with Cabinet-level representation, and does she agree that this should not be compromised for quid pro quo deals made to facilitate aid for trade?
Nigel Adams
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department has Cabinet representation. I just make the point that trade can be and is a key driver for economic growth. It triggers positive changes in a country’s economy, which helps raise incomes in the poorest countries, creates job, lifts people out of poverty and helps countries to move beyond trade dependency.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. I will take an answer from the Minister, but I warmly welcome her to her new position in the Cabinet.
On the Department’s role around investment in developing countries, the International Labour Organisation sets global standards for employment rights. As DFID invests in African nations, will the Minister ensure that those Governments meet international labour standards, if not even higher standards?
Nigel Adams
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that where we have these interests in developing countries we take those rights incredibly seriously. Our network fully engages with them, and this fantastic array of Ministers, who will shortly do some travelling, will ensure that that is the case.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Wendy Morton)
Climate action is a priority for the UK Government and the Department for International Development. We have recently doubled our commitment to international climate finance and will spend £11.6 billion over the next five-year period on helping poorer countries tackle climate change. Since 2011, ICF has helped 57 million people cope with the effects of climate change and provided 26 million with improved access to clean energy.
Drew Hendry
Drawing climate finance solely from the 0.7% will not be sustainable as climate change takes its toll, and drawing from the aid budget will mean cuts for health, education and life-saving measures, so what plans does the Minister have to establish new and additional sources of climate finance?
Wendy Morton
I absolutely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Finance is critical, but this is about more than just finance. The UK will be hosting COP26 this year in partnership with Italy and, as I am sure he is aware, this will be happening in Glasgow. Tackling climate change is about so much more than just finance; it cuts right across the work that we do in the Department for International Development.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
My apologies: I am short on voice today, about which many in the House will no doubt be very relieved. The Government’s 2019 spending review allocated sufficient funding to ensure that the UK can deliver on our commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance in 2020-21. Thanks to this Government’s focus on a strong economy, we can deliver on this commitment, improving the lives of millions in developing countries—for example, by giving more than 14 million children access to a decent education, immunising 56 million children and supporting 52 million to access clean water and better sanitation in the past two years alone.[Official Report, 4 March 2020, Vol. 673, c. 8MC.]
Tommy Sheppard
I asked that question because in 2013 the Secretary of State tweeted an article that questioned the 0.7% of GDP target and, more recently, she circulated an article by the former Development Secretary saying that the waste of cash on
“vanity projects in far-flung lands”
had kept her awake at night. Can the Secretary of State confirm today that she has changed her mind on this matter and is now committed to the 0.7% target?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I am absolutely committed to 0.7% and I am committed to spending it in value-for-money terms for the British taxpayers who are funding it and, most importantly, to ensuring that we help those countries that are most fragile and most in need of aid and then development, so that they can become strong independent countries themselves. Getting to that point involves doing lots of things, and not necessarily in the way we have done them before. We need to ensure that we have a long-term investment perspective to help those countries to become self-sufficient. I do not want countries always to be dependent on UK and international aid; I want them to be self-sufficient, proud countries that can stand on their own two feet.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Given the likely effect of covid-19 on populations that DFID works with, what plans exist to establish contingency funding to deal with mitigation for those populations and to shift funding to the development of a vaccine, which is a global equity?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and for the enormous amount of work that he has done in previous iterations of his posts in this Department and others. He is absolutely right; the challenge of finding a vaccine for covid-19 is something that we are actively involved in, and we have already supported £5 million to the World Health Organisation. I was speaking to Dr Tedros yesterday to find out what other support we could bring, not only in cash terms but in expertise such as the skills of epidemiologists and logisticians, which could help the WHO to drive forwards in the weakest health systems across the world to ensure that they have the support they need.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State confident that her Department has sufficient resources to deal with the consequences of the ongoing conflict in Syria, especially given the recent call from the UN high commissioner for refugees for the international support for refugees trapped in Idlib to be sustained and stepped up?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I think we are all continually horrified by the increasing abandonment of any kind of respect for humanitarian law that we are seeing in Syria from the regime, supported by the Russians. I signed off an £89 million package last week to provide more immediate help in that area. The challenge is to get it in, and to ensure that those who are able to deliver that humanitarian relief are able to get in and out safely. The Foreign Secretary was in Turkey yesterday continuing to try to find ways to ensure that those communities are at least able to keep warm and fed while we find ways to really sort out this impossible humanitarian challenge.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Excuse me, Mr Speaker. My cold is a demonstration, if I may say so, of joint working with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as it is the Foreign Secretary’s cold, which he has shared, most unreasonably. [Interruption.] We have sent him abroad.
Promoting 12 years of quality education for all girls by 2030 is a personal priority of the Prime Minister’s and of mine. Girls in fragile states are central to this. When girls are educated, societies are healthier, wealthier and more sustainable. The UK is the leading donor to the global fund for education in emergencies, which supported over 1 million children to attend school in 2018.
Laura Farris
There is a fantastic charity in Newbury, Afghan Connection, which has built or renovated over 100 schools in Takhar province, where most adult women are illiterate, yet their daughters go to school because the charity has offered separate school buildings and female-only teaching staff. What steps can my right hon. Friend take to support schooling that reflects social and religious sensitivities like this?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the excellent work done by her local charity, Afghan Connection, and I look forward to hearing more about the work it is doing. Perhaps we can join that up.
DFID supports marginalised girls’ access and stay-in-school through strategies such as gender-sensitive infrastructure and pedagogy. DFID supports two girls’ education challenge projects in Afghanistan specifically. The UK is the largest donor to the Global Partnership for Education and to Education Cannot Wait, which supports girls’ education across fragile states.
Jonathan Gullis
I thank my right hon. Friend for her previous answers. As a former secondary school teacher, I know first hand the role that education has in unleashing potential, so will she update the House on what steps her Department is taking to support women and girls in fragile and conflict-affected states to ensure that where somebody is born has no bearing on their future potential?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank my hon. Friend for his service to education before coming on to the green Benches, and I know that he will support our commitment to educating girls. Girls in emergencies and crises are more than twice as likely to be out of school, so the UK prioritises quality education in conflicts and crises. We are the largest donor to Education Cannot Wait, the global fund for education in emergencies, and bilaterally, we are supporting education for over 600,000 girls in Syria and surrounding countries.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. International Women’s Day is a focal point of the year to celebrate the movement for women’s rights and gender equality, and we welcome her Department’s focus on girls’ education, but does she agree that girls’ education is a basic and universal human right, not something that should be used simply as a means to achieve other ends? Will she commit to implementing a gender-transformative approach across DFID’s work to help dismantle the structural causes of gender inequality?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I agree absolutely that education is a right for all, but especially for girls. We all know that if a girl is educated, that community gains so much more than just that education. That is something that at DFID and across this Government we are absolutely committed to. We are working in a number of areas on gender equality and reductions in violence against girls, and part of the focus that I am going to give to DFID around girls’ education for 12 years is the Prime Minister’s absolute commitment. We will be drawing together all those constituent parts.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the new Secretary of State and also the fact that this morning marks the inauguration of the Speaker’s chaplain. It is lovely to see her in the Chamber and leading our prayers.
Does the Secretary of State agree that we need much more energy from legislators worldwide? If we are going to tackle girls’ education worldwide, as well as my own World Health Organisation work on reducing road accidents worldwide, can we not get the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and legislators around the world helping Ministers to do the job properly?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
It sounds to me like the hon. Gentleman has just given himself a job to help me to draw up the plan that we want to bring together, which is exactly as he mentioned. If the focus is on ensuring that every girl across the globe has 12 years of education, we need to include all those things that make it possible, such as getting to school safely and appropriate sanitation in those schools so that girls can keep attending. I look forward to him coming to help us—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are going to have to speed up, seriously. You are very good, but you’re too detailed.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative that was set up in 2012. Does she agree that the initiative needs to be relaunched and shown new leadership in a forthcoming conference later this year?
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Wendy Morton)
More than 700 million people do not have enough water every day, and climate change will make it worse unless more action is taken. DFID is supporting poorer countries to understand how climate change will affect water availability and to manage their water resources sustainably. DFID spends about £300 million a year on water, which since 2015 has given over 51 million people across 30 countries clean water or a decent toilet.
Fleur Anderson
Some 800 million people across the world still do not have access to clean water, and clean water is the first line of defence in coping with climate change. We are currently seeing a need for handwashing, for which people need clean water, but the most climate-vulnerable countries across the world have some of the lowest levels of clean water. Only 5% of global climate finance is spent on helping countries adapt to climate change. Will the Minister increase funding for water, sanitation and hygiene projects to tackle the impact of climate change and adapt—
Wendy Morton
By 2030, 40% of the world’s population will be facing water scarcity unless action is taken, and we in DFID take that very seriously. This year is critical for galvanising global ambition on climate change, which is why COP26 is so important. DFID programmes cover many crucial aspects of water security, but there is much more to do to avert the global water crisis.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (James Duddridge)
DFID has over 150 infra- structure programmes, including providing water, roads, electricity, schools and hospitals. This Government established the International Development Infrastructure Commission to accelerate our work in this area.
Gareth Davies
Infrastructure is critical for economic growth, creating jobs and boosting businesses, but we must also be mindful of the natural environment. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that new infrastructure development in developing countries is sustainable?
James Duddridge
DFID is directly investing in infrastructure programmes that will enhance climate resilience in developing countries. Our work is focused on creating the right enabling conditions to direct private finance into low-carbon infrastructure, expanding Africa’s financial markets and unlocking investment through innovative instruments such as green investment bonds.
Sir David Evennett
I welcome my hon. Friend’s work in this important area. As we look to the UN climate summit in Glasgow later this year, can he update the House on the work with countries across Africa to help them develop their clean energy potential?
James Duddridge
I thank my right hon. Friend for his passion for Africa. We are committed to working with African countries to boost renewable energy potential and cleaner energy alternatives. For example, the Africa clean energy programme is working in over 15 countries to increase the deployment of off-grid renewable energy.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Department invested nearly £300 million of taxpayers’ money in the airport on St Helena. Will the Minister update us on whether aircraft can now land and take off from that expensive airport?
James Duddridge
I am familiar with the situation, as the hon. Lady knows, and I am more than happy to update her in writing.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Access to clean water is an essential prerequisite to development in sub-Saharan Africa. What steps are being taken to support small charities that excel in that much-needed activity in that land?
James Duddridge
The provision of water is essential, and the Department is particularly keen to enable small charities, particularly small British charities, in this sector. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular ideas, my colleagues and I are more than happy to receive them.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
We are proud to maintain our manifesto commitment to spend 0.7% of our income on international development, helping countries to become economically self-sufficient, free societies where liberal values can flourish. That is firmly in our own interests. The climate change challenges, alongside championing 12 years of girls’ education and tackling preventable diseases, will be our focus. These are global challenges, achievable thanks to DFID investment in world-leading British business, the talent of our innovators, and our world-class defence and diplomatic network. I am determined that the British public’s altruism will be reflected in the outcomes that we see from DFID funding.
Antony Higginbotham
The UK plays a leadership role in countries around the world, projecting our values and ensuring that free societies can flourish. Education is a key part of that, so, ahead of International Women’s Day, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that every child gets 12 years of education?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Talent is spread around the world but, sadly, opportunity is not. Twelve years of quality education is a key priority, and I am proud that between 2015 and 2019 we supported 14.3 million girls to gain a decent education, across 70 of our most fragile countries. As another International Women’s Day is before us, we have the opportunity to refocus our energies on making sure that there is not a single girl who is not educated.[Official Report, 17 March 2020, Vol. 673, c. 8MC.]
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I welcome the new Secretary of State to her post. She leads one of the most important Departments, which literally saves lives every day. More than 60 countries across the world have reported at least one case of coronavirus, but, as yet, we have not seen a widespread outbreak in sub-Saharan Africa. What immediate steps is she taking to ensure the preparedness of the world’s poorest nations in the event of such an outbreak?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the great challenge is to be able to provide support to those countries where their health systems are weakest, should they need that support. Alongside our colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care, I am working closely with the World Health Organisation to make sure that we can support it with technical skills as well as funding. We have already given £5 million to its initial fund to make sure that it can be as prepared as possible and reach as quickly as possible those countries that will need this.
Dan Carden
The situation in Idlib and across Syria has reached a horrifying new level: indiscriminate bombings are killing civilians and humanitarian workers; 1 million people have fled their homes; people are sleeping in freezing conditions; and children are dying. We welcome the Government’s increased humanitarian response, but what is the UK, as a member of the Security Council, doing? When will the Prime Minister play his part to lead diplomatic efforts to protect civilian lives in Syria?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The Foreign Secretary is in the region at the moment, continuing to work with regional leaders to try to find ways to move forward supporting the Turkish communities who are looking after so many displaced people. As I said, we continue to be horrified and appalled by the humanitarian legal breaches that are going on, and we continue to provide support. I signed off £89 million last week to make sure that we can provide support as best we can.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Wendy Morton)
The UK is hosting the global vaccine summit in June, supporting Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance to raise at least $7.4 billion towards vaccination for the world’s poorest children. Ahead of the summit, we are convening world-leading British academics, the private sector and civil society in Liverpool to highlight UK research in global health that helps to unlock barriers to ending preventable deaths.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Wendy Morton
We welcome that report and its recognition of the work the UK is already doing. The report is in line with the Government’s ambition to end preventable maternal, newborn and child deaths by 2030. We will be publishing a paper shortly setting out how we will work with others to reach that goal.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome and similar illnesses are believed to have been started in unsanitary butcheries in eastern and south-east Asia. What role does, and can, the Department have in producing cleaner butcheries, so that we do not get this transfer from animal to human disease?
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
Research and development is incredibly important, which is why we have thus far committed more than £40 million. I take my hon. Friend’s question seriously. Through our networks, we can project and promote good practice, and I am sure that that is what we are doing.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Wendy Morton
The Government are aware of the situation in Colombia and Venezuela. The UK is one of the largest donors to the humanitarian response in Venezuela and the top donor to the Central Emergency Response Fund and Education Cannot Wait. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in respect of his specific point on policing.
Mr Speaker
This is not the normal situation, but it is very important that I welcome the Pakistani Governor of the Punjab, Mohammad Sarwar, who is a former colleague and Member of this House and is in the Gallery today. We welcome him. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
It is now two years to the day since a chemical weapon was deployed by Russian military intelligence on the streets of Salisbury. All our thoughts remain with those affected and their families and loved ones. We will continue to seek justice for them. I am pleased to say that, two years on, Salisbury is back on its feet, focused firmly on the future and welcoming visitors with open arms. I am sure the House will want to pay tribute to the people of Salisbury and Amesbury and wish them well for the future.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Richard Graham
As the Government prepare the nation for the worst of the coronavirus, while working for the best, now is the time to wash our hands and pull together, so does the Prime Minister agree that we need in place a robust plan to cover any significant cash-flow losses for businesses, so that employees and their mortgages, rents and benefits will still be paid? Will the Treasury consider delaying VAT and pay-as-you-earn collection, if need be? Does the Prime Minister agree that, come what may, as we saw during the devastating floods of Gloucester in 2007 and elsewhere recently, Britain will find the strength, perhaps aided by a cup of not-necessarily-Yorkshire tea, to pull through?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are of course monitoring the situation and are prepared to support individuals, businesses and the economy to maintain economic confidence, quite rightly. Our action plan—our battle plan—points to mitigations that already exist, such as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ Time to Pay arrangements, which are available on a case-by-case basis to support firms struggling with payments.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating the Prime Minister and his partner on the news that they are expecting a baby. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I join the Prime Minister in wishing the people Salisbury well. It is a wonderful city and I have visited it many times, and what happened to them was of course utterly appalling. Their safety and security is paramount for all of us.
I pay tribute to all the medical staff and, indeed, expert public servants, here and overseas, who are doing vital work to combat the spread of coronavirus and are looking after those affected.
Yesterday, our part-time Prime Minister finally published the steps that his Government will take to tackle the outbreak of the disease. The strategy broadly has our support, but a decade of Tory austerity means that our national health service is already struggling to cope. Bed-occupancy levels are at 94% and hundreds of our most vulnerable people are being treated on trolleys in corridors. What additional funding will our overstretched and underfunded NHS be given to deal with this crisis?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this Government have put record funding into the NHS and we have pledged that we will give it everything that it needs to cope with the crisis.
It might be for the advantage of the right hon. Gentleman and the House if I update the House on where we are with the coronavirus outbreak. As yesterday’s plan made clear, we are not at the point yet where we are asking large numbers of people to self-isolate, but that, of course, may come if large numbers of people have the symptoms of coronavirus. If they stay at home, the House will understand that they are helping to protect all of us by slowing the spread of the virus and that is what the best scientific evidence tells us. If they stay at home and if we ask people to self-isolate, they may lose out financially, so I can today announce that the Health Secretary will bring forward, as part of our emergency coronavirus legislation, measures to allow the payment of statutory sick pay from the very first day you are sick, instead of four days under the current rules. That is the right way forward. Nobody should be penalised for doing the right thing.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the Prime Minister for that, but I want to ask him a couple more questions on this subject. Is it true, as has been reported, that police forces are likely to become so overstretched by coronavirus that 999 response times will have to be extended and that even investigations into some murders will have to be halted as a result of this?
The Prime Minister
We are not at that stage, or anything like that stage, yet. The right hon. Gentleman knows that our police forces are well able to cope with all types of eventualities and have long-standing arrangements to prepare them for such pressures.
Jeremy Corbyn
Under this Government, there are 2 million workers on low pay, many of them women in the care sector who are not eligible for statutory sick pay at the present time. It is not clear whether the Prime Minister’s statement just now covers them or not, and those on social security could face sanctions if they miss appointments and, therefore, they and their families will face terrible hardship. When the Prime Minister brings forward the emergency legislation, will he guarantee that workers’ rights to sick pay from day one—he has just indicated that that will apply on statutory sick pay—will apply to all claimants? Those people who are not currently eligible for statutory sick pay will have to make a terrible choice between health and hardship.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is raising a very important point. We are, of course, very much aware of the issues faced by the self-employed and those on zero-hours contracts. I should stress that some of them will be entitled to statutory sick pay—[Interruption.] A great many. Others will be entitled to help through the existing system, such as universal credit. We are urgently looking at the application process to reflect on the advice on self-isolation. I think that members of the public have appreciated the way that, hitherto, Members have come together across the Floor of this House to deal with the crisis. I think it would be common ground between us all that we would want to do everything we can to avoid penalising those who are doing the right thing.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister is not being clear about this. The reality is that, if a person is on universal credit or has just been put on to it, they have a five-week wait before they get any benefits. Will he be absolutely clear that nobody—nobody—will have to choose between health and hardship, because it is a matter of public health concern for everybody?
Our part-time Prime Minister failed to turn up on Monday to answer a question about a breach of the ministerial code. In his own foreword to that code, the Prime Minister wrote:
“There must be no bullying and no harassment”.
Will he now commit to an independent investigation into the Home Secretary’s conduct, led by an external lawyer, and commit to a date when its findings will be made public?
The Prime Minister
Of course, it is right that there should be an investigation into any allegations of bullying, and that is what the Cabinet Office and Sir Alex Allan will be doing. Since the right hon. Gentleman mentions the Home Secretary, let me just remind him that she is keeping this country safe by putting in place record numbers of police officers, she believes in stopping the early release of offenders, and she is bringing in an Australian-style, points-based system to tackle our migration crisis. The right hon. Gentleman would scrap stop and search, he believes in getting rid of our security services and he certainly would not tackle our immigration system.
Jeremy Corbyn
This is about whether the Prime Minister will release the findings of an investigation into the Home Secretary’s behaviour. I repeat to him that a Government cannot be judge and jury over their own conduct; there has to be an independent element to that investigation. Overnight, further allegations have emerged that the Home Secretary repeatedly harassed and humiliated her private secretary while she ran the Department for International Development. If that is true, it suggests a shocking and unacceptable pattern of behaviour across three Government Departments. On each occasion, tens of thousands of pounds of hard-earned taxpayers’ money has been spaffed up the wall to buy their silence. Was the Prime Minister aware of these allegations about the Home Secretary? If he was, why did he appoint her?
The Prime Minister
I repeat the point I just made—the Home Secretary is doing an outstanding job and I have every confidence in her. If there are allegations, of course it is right that they should be properly investigated by the Cabinet Office, and that is what is happening. But I take no lessons about bullying from the leader of a party where female MPs were bullied so badly in the matter of antisemitism that they actually left the party, and where the shadow Chancellor has still not apologised for his call for a Member of our party to be lynched.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister said, “If there are allegations”. Is he completely unaware of all the allegations that have been made over the last few days? Is he completely unaware of the resignation of a permanent secretary because of his treatment by the Home Secretary? We have a part-time Prime Minister who barely turns up but is determined a cover up for bullies in his Government. There cannot be one rule for workers across this country, and another for him and his Ministers. His Home Secretary has been accused of repeated bullying and harassment, leading to hard-working staff attempting suicide by overdose, and he has given her his full support. How can the people of this country have faith in a Prime Minister who cannot be bothered to turn up and, when he does, has no shame in defending bullying in his own Government?
The Prime Minister
That is a question from a full-time neo-Marxist who has failed to stamp out bullying in his own party. I am very proud of the record of this Government, just over the last 82 days. We have taken back control of our borders, our laws and our money. We have got Brexit done. We have set out a new points-based immigration system. We have put more money into people’s pockets through the biggest ever increase in the living wage, and have guaranteed more funding for schools by increasing the minimum funding for every pupil. We have restored the nurses’ bursary, introduced a Bill to set out a record cash boost for our NHS and ensured that there will be free hospital car parking for everybody who attends a hospital. And we are delivering gigabit broadband for the entire country. That is to say nothing of the police we are recruiting. That is just in the last 82 days. We are getting on with delivering the people’s priorities.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I will indeed. Today I will chair the first ever Cabinet Committee on Climate Change, in recognition of this Government’s revolutionary commitments to cut to net zero by 2050—one of the many ways in which the Government are leading Europe and the world in tackling climate change.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Like the Prime Minister, I note the two-year anniversary of the terrible attack in Salisbury. It is important, on these matters and on other crises that we face, such as coronavirus, that, where appropriate, we do stand together.
Coronavirus is causing deep and genuine concern across society. We know that up to 80% of the population are at risk of infection. We must all provide clear, calm and practical leadership in the days, weeks and months ahead. In the past few days, Scotland’s First Minister, the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government have been working closely together to put plans in place to protect all our people. Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of England suggested that a financial bridge may be available to assist markets through any volatility. If there is a financial bridge for markets, can the Prime Minister tell us: will there be a financial bridge for all workers and, indeed, those who rely on benefits, who should not risk the threat of sanction if they cannot make an appointment?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the excellent co-operation that Scotland and, indeed, all the devolved Administrations have given in preparing the battle plan. Yes, really to recapitulate my answer to the Leader of the Opposition, we will take every step that we can to ensure that businesses are protected, that the economy remains strong and that no one, whether employed or self-employed—whatever the status of their employment—is penalised for doing the right thing.
Ian Blackford
I thank the Prime Minister for that answer, and I commit my party and our Government in Scotland to work constructively together.
Of course, people are worried about their health, but there are millions of workers who are worried about the consequences for their incomes, their job securities and their families, so I do ask that the Prime Minister give specific guarantees. Certainly, we will work together in the SNP in pushing for emergency legislation. Will he give the clarification that all workers will be fully protected from the first day of sickness, that those payments should be up to the level of the real living wage and that there will be emergency legislation to guarantee that staff who are asked to self-isolate, and their businesses, are fully supported? That is the leadership that is required. I ask if the Prime Minister will commit himself to working constructively with us all to that end.
The Prime Minister
Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he asks the question. He will have seen from my earlier answer that what we are indeed doing is advancing the day, on a temporary basis, on which people are eligible for statutory sick pay from the fourth day to the first day. I think that is the right thing. Again, I repeat that we will support business and we will make sure that we keep the economy strong. No one should be penalised for doing the right thing. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be happy to engage in further conversations with the right hon. Gentleman about the detail of how we propose to do that.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Prime Minister
This country, as my hon. Friend knows, leads the world in battery technology. It is a wonderful thing that Cornwall indeed boasts extensive resources of lithium, and we mean to exploit them. I know that there is no more passionate champion of Cornwall than my hon. Friend. I wish him a happy Saint Piran’s day—and Kernow bys vyken!
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She can take it that we will ensure that we abide by the judgment and take account of the Paris convention on climate change, but I do not believe for one second that that will be an impediment to our delivery of an infrastructure revolution across this country.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is working so hard to recruit 20,000 more police officers and to enhance stop-and-search powers. That is why we have set out plans to build more prisons and keep violent and sexual offenders in prison for longer. I am delighted that the west midlands, thanks partly to my hon. Friend’s lobbying, is receiving another 366 police officers.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I congratulate the hon. Lady on what she just said, which may have come as a bit of a bombshell to some of her colleagues—
The Prime Minister
Perhaps those on the shadow Front Bench, at any rate. The hon. Lady is entirely right, and that is what we are doing, as I said in my earlier answer.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I can indeed. That is why we are supporting the Ashington to Blyth to Tyne rail line—the start of our £500 million investment in connecting towns whose stations were closed during the Beeching cuts. That is among many other benefits that we will bring to the people of Blyth. I thank my hon. Friend for his support. We are going to repay the trust and confidence of those people by investing in their communities.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am happy to study the particular case that the hon. Gentleman raises. Universal credit is available from day one—[Interruption]—and I stick firmly to my belief that the best route out of poverty is not benefits but work, and what this Government have achieved is record low unemployment and record gains in employment across the country. Wages are now rising—[Interruption.] They don’t want to hear it, but the truth is that wages are now rising for the low-paid as well.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I learned what a wonderful staff we have in the NHS, and I am delighted to say that Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust will receive £3.7 million seed funding for a full redevelopment, in addition to the £46 million that we are now putting in to its urgent care hub. This is the party of the NHS—delivering on the people’s priorities in Kettering and across the country.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I return to the point I made earlier on, which is that the Home Secretary is doing an outstanding job—delivering change, putting police out on the streets, cutting crime and delivering a new immigration system—and I am sticking by her.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has just told me—passing the ball swiftly down the line—that, yes, my hon. Friend’s A&E is certainly staying open, and I thank her for the point that she makes.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I loathe bullying, but I am not taking any lessons from a party that has presided over systematic bullying and discrimination against those who stick up for the Jewish community and for Israel in this country, and we still have yet to hear a proper apology from the Labour party or from the Labour leadership for what they have done.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
The Taliban have resumed their attacks in Afghanistan, and today the US has undertaken defensive airstrikes, undermining the fragile peace deal, which will mean the release of thousands of prisoners and the continued export of opium to fund extremism. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that no peace deal can bypass the Afghan Government, and will he give me his assurances that we will stand shoulder to shoulder with Afghan women, many of whom have already lost their lives just fighting for dignity under Taliban rule?
The Prime Minister
We of course stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government of Ashraf Ghani, and my hon. Friend is right, by the way, in what she says about women in Afghanistan. It is one of the great achievements of this country, despite all the sacrifices that we experienced in the operations in Helmand, that millions of women in Afghanistan were helped into education, thanks to the interventions of this country, and we can be very proud of what we did.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member is raising a very important point. The chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser, together with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, will be saying a little bit more in the next couple of days about what we are going to do to delay the advance of coronavirus—in Parliament and in other large gatherings. We are still at the containment stage—she will understand the distinction that the Government are making—and when we come to the delay phase, she will be hearing a lot more detail about what we propose to do with large gatherings and places such as Parliament.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
My consituent Tom Channon was just 18 years old when he tragically died at the Eden Roc complex in Majorca in July 2018. This incident was totally preventable and avoidable. It came just five weeks after Tom Hughes from Wrexham fell to his death at the same site in similar circumstances. Nothing had been done to make the site safe. An independent surveyor report has pointed to serious health and safety deficiencies, Tom’s parents, John and Ceri Channon, have been campaigning for a criminal case to be brought against those responsible. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister use all his influence to press the Spanish authorities to pursue a criminal prosecution that not only seeks justice for Tom but also sends a clear message to other accommodation-owners in Majorca to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in future?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend very much for raising what sounds like an appalling case, and I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our deepest sympathies to Tom’s family and friends. To seek justice for Tom, I am very happy to ask the Foreign Office to begin talks first with my right hon. Friend and then with their Spanish counterparts.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the issue of stabbings and violent crime, which I agree with her are too high and must come down. That is one of the reasons why we are increasing the number of police officers in this country, and, as she will have heard in the House just now, in the west midlands that number is going up by 366 immediately.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
The Prime Minister will be aware that, due to coronavirus, demand for air travel has decreased around the world. Is he aware that, due to slot allocation rules, there are perverse incentives for airlines to fly half-empty planes around the globe so as not to lose lucrative slots? Will he seek a derogation for UK airlines from these international rules, if only for the sake of the environment?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises a characteristically brilliant point, which I confess has not been drawn to my attention so far. I will look at it, and it certainly seems crazy that planes should be flying simply to retain the slots to which they are entitled, and we will see what we can do.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. I make the decisions; please, we want shorter questions. Now, just finish, very quickly—and when I get up, please give way.
Liz Kendall
Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss a special migration route into social care, to stop the current crisis getting even worse?
The Prime Minister
I do not know quite what the hon. Lady means by excluding EU workers, since there are record numbers of EU workers currently in this country, and indeed more can come until the end of the year, when they can register. I have every confidence that we will solve the issue of social care. We will be bringing forward plans very shortly, which I hope will attract cross-party support, to ensure that everybody gets the dignity that they need in old age and nobody is forced to sell their home.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has, with righteous zeal, acted to curb the early release of terrorist prisoners, but he must know that those plans will be put at risk by malign, bourgeois-liberal judicial activists, so will he, in the spirit of our wonderful new Attorney General, agree an urgent review of the legislative means they use to do their work and to put our people at risk and the Government’s plan to tackle that in jeopardy?
The Prime Minister
It is certainly true that people have been let out far too early, far too often. That is why we are not only looking into stopping the early release of serious sexual and violent offenders, but have already produced legislation to stop the early release of terrorist offenders.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The Prime Minister will be aware of continuing concerns in Northern Ireland among business about the Northern Ireland protocol. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet a cross-party delegation of Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland and business representatives to discuss his commitment to maintain unfettered access to the UK market for Northern Ireland business?
The Prime Minister
I have no difficulty at all making such an undertaking, because it is very clear from the protocol that unfettered access for Northern Ireland will continue.
Petition
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
This afternoon there was a debate on the floods, in which I requested £5 million for flood defences for my constituency. In addition, the residents of my constituency have prepared a petition to the House of Commons.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Riverside Drive in Prestolee, Bolton, suffered a serious flood on 26 December 2015, and a second serious flood on 9 February 2020. Both of these floods cause significant loss of property. Residents’ personal belongings have been destroyed, and their homes and vehicles have been wrecked, causing absolute misery and distress as well as financial hardship. Significant distress was caused to residents at time of the floods, and many have suffered ongoing anxiety, leading to wider issues of mental health. Following the first flood, the Environment Agency propose the construction of flood defences to prevent a recurrence of the devastation. However, the Government has not yet provided the funding required and 5 years after the first flood, no flood defences have yet been installed. With the ever increasing impact of climate change and increasing rainfall, the problem of flooding in this area will not go away and will only get worse. Flood defences are urgently needed to prevent further loss of property and risk to life.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to provide the full funding required for installing flood defences at Prestolee as a matter of urgency.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002562]
Personal Statement
Mr Speaker
I have granted leave to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) to make a personal statement following her resignation from the Government. I remind the House that interventions are not allowed and that there can be no debate arising from such statements.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I want to use this personal statement to place on record what an incredible job this is, and to encourage others, particularly women, who are thinking about public service that they really can make a positive difference.
Since 2010, we have lived through three general elections and three referendums, and I have worked for three different Prime Ministers and even had two tilts at the top job myself. During that time, we have learned a lot. First, there is the value of a punchy catchphrase, from “long-term economic plan”—remember that?—to “take back control” and “get Brexit done”, or as we like to say, “got Brexit done.” But it is the action behind those words that has given us the highest employment there has ever been, a superb Conservative majority, and a free and independent United Kingdom.
I have also learned the value of knowing exactly what you are voting for. For example, colleagues, if your Whip tells you, as a newbie MP, to go through the Aye Lobby and vote for something called the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, just say no. The House has learned a lot about “Erskine May”, from the precise meaning of “forthwith” to the specific purpose of Standing Order No. 24, and even how a Speaker should vote in the event of a tie. But the key lesson for me has been the importance of focusing on your beliefs and behaving with honour whatever the cost. When I arrived in this place, bright eyed and bushy tailed if not strictly youthful after 25 years in finance, my ambitions were for what I called my three Bs: Brussels, banks and babies.
Brussels, or Brexit, started out as an enthusiastic attempt to reform the EU from inside. I set up the Fresh Start project with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), with support from 200 colleagues. We set out the case for EU reform, but it soon became clear that that was not on offer, and the rest is history.
That time coincided with my first ever rebellion against a three-line Whip, as one of 81 Conservatives to vote for a referendum on EU membership, leading to media speculation that I had told the Chancellor, George Osborne, to—if you will forgive me, Mr Speaker—“eff off”. Well, I can assure you that there is only one person to whom I might be tempted to provide such frank advice, and that would not include any former or current Chancellor, and certainly not any current Speaker. [Laughter.]
My second B, banks, was a personal mission after seeing the damage done by the financial crisis and Labour’s lack of oversight. As a new MP elected to the Treasury Committee, I could hold the banks to account over LIBOR rigging, stop their plans to scrap chequebooks and challenge our brand new rock star Bank of England Governor, as he was described at the time, over quantitative easing and the euro crisis.
City Minister was my first job in David Cameron’s Government, working to introduce new pensions freedoms, setting out the ring-fence for banking groups, arranging for the Post Office to provide banking services on the high street, and recovering over £1 billion from the Icelandic Government after the bail-out of Icesave.
After David Cameron’s excellent win in 2015, I was moved to Energy. With my good friend Amber Rudd as Secretary of State, we rebalanced the needs of the fuel poor with speedy growth in renewables, we announced that coal would come off the grid entirely by 2025, and we kept the lights on through one of the tightest winter energy margins ever. And that was the year of Paris COP21. It is a real source of pride to have joined that global effort to tackle climate change. I wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy huge success as COP president when the UK plays host later this year.
The result of the EU referendum in June 2016 is right up there with England winning the rugby world cup 16 years ago and with the look on John Bercow’s face when I told him to apologise for calling me a stupid woman, but it is a bit behind the happiness of my wedding day. Not surprisingly, the leadership election that followed is also forever etched in my memory. My own part in Brexit was always about doing what I thought was best for the UK. Whatever has been said about it, my decision to withdraw from the final two was to give the country the urgent certainty it needed. I am tempted to say something about a mother, but I am just not going there.
As the new Environment Secretary in 2016, it was amazing to set up the huge Brexit project in the Department to deliver for farmers and fishing communities the bright future they were promised, to develop the 25-year environment plan, to ban the sale of modern ivory, to create the first ever litter strategy and to introduce CCTV in slaughterhouses. Those are just a few of the highlights.
Throughout the time I spent in her Cabinet, I fully supported my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in her determination that Brexit should mean Brexit. During my two years as Leader of the House of Commons after the 2017 election, the challenges of a hung Parliament were so evident right from day one. Delivering pizza was hard enough; delivering Brexit proved nigh on impossible. In spite of that, amazingly we achieved Royal Assent on almost 60 Bills and passed more than 600 pieces of secondary legislation to prepare for Brexit. But like the proverbial swan, while we were gliding on the surface, the business managers were paddling furiously underneath. I pay tribute to each of them and to my superb private office.
When the harassment and bullying scandal hit Parliament in 2017, I was so proud to pull together the cross-party coalition that devised the independent complaints and grievance scheme, with the clear goals that everyone who works in or visits Parliament should be treated with dignity and respect, and that confidentiality should underpin everything.
As Leader of the House, I had one of the most beautiful offices in the Palace; its only limitation was the rat living in my waste paper basket. So when a legislative slot appeared for the restoration and renewal Bill, we grabbed it. Preserving this iconic Palace as the seat of our democracy for future generations will be a huge achievement for all those involved, and I wish them success.
A long-awaited change that I was so glad to introduce was to give all Members of this House the same right as workers across the country to spend time with their newborn or adopted babies, which we did via a new proxy voting system.
Which brings me to the third of my three Bs: babies. As many in this House know, better support for the early years is essential to levelling up, to solving health inequalities and to promoting lifelong emotional well- being. In 2011, I launched the “1,001 critical days” campaign with support from every party in the House, many Members of the other place and almost every early years stakeholder. Frank Field, the late Dame Tessa Jowell and the hon. Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) always worked on a cross-party basis, and I am grateful to them.
I set up PIP UK as a charity that would provide support across the country for families struggling with a new baby. I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who took over my early years campaigns and charity responsibilities when I joined the Government. He has done a brilliant job for so many years.
As Leader of the House, the former Prime Minister asked me to chair an inter-ministerial group looking at early years and how the Government could provide better support. The team spent a year researching existing provision, from health visiting to breastfeeding advice and from talking therapies to parenting groups, and Select Committees held detailed inquiries into the impact of early years experiences on later outcomes. There is no doubt that a focus on this area could be life-changing for millions.
So resigning as the Leader of the House last summer was a tough decision, driven by my concern that the withdrawal agreement Bill as then proposed, with the potential for a second referendum, would not have delivered our exit from the EU. As Leader of the House, I would have had to bring that Bill forward and I could not in all conscience do so. I was sorry to see the resignation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, the leadership of our country and party once again being challenged by the decision on the EU. No one could have worked harder than her and I feel sure that history will judge her kindly.
In the new leadership election, a number of candidates, myself included—supported by my great friends the hon. Members for Daventry and for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler)—sought to offer a way forward for the country, but after defeat in the first round, I gave my wholehearted support to the Prime Minister. I genuinely believe he is the right person to seize the opportunities that await us outside the EU, and it was an honour to serve as Business Secretary in his first Cabinet.
Brexit readiness was the urgent priority, but setting a new, clear direction for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was top of my agenda. With my ministerial team, we agreed our mission to build a stronger, greener United Kingdom and, to achieve that, our priorities—first, that the UK will lead the world in tackling global climate change; secondly, that we will solve the grand challenges facing our society; and thirdly, that we will quite simply make the UK the best place in the world to work and to grow a business. One key observation I would highlight from my six months in BEIS, and that is that our climate change ambitions are not just about doing the right thing: I believe there is also a huge early mover advantage. UK science and innovation could make the UK green tech sector as big in years to come as UK financial services are today, and I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will seize this opportunity.
The last general election showed that when people said in 2016 that they wanted to leave the EU, they really did mean it, and I applaud the Prime Minister for his single-minded focus on getting Brexit done. For my own part, I will now focus my attention in Parliament on that third B—babies—and I look forward to renewing my passion for giving every baby the best start in life. When the Prime Minister asked me to step aside, he also gave me his word that he would enable me to take forward the early years work, and I am delighted that the wheels are in motion. I heartily congratulate him and Carrie on their decision to do their own bit of early years research—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister did not write it.
I will of course continue to work hard for my fabulous South Northamptonshire constituency, and I look forward to spending some more quality time with my family. It has been an incredible 10 years, and it ain’t over yet. There is no greater honour than to serve community and country, and I will continue to do so with pride.
Point of Order
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As there have been further allegations today about the conduct of the Home Secretary, I wondered if you could advise on how Parliament could initiate a genuinely independent inquiry into the conduct of the Home Secretary towards civil servants in her Departments.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of the point of order, but it is not a point of order for me, as she well knows. I understand it is an attempt to raise what is a matter of debate, but it is not for me as Chair.
BILL PRESENTED
International Development (Women’s Sanitary Products) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Wendy Chamberlain, supported by Christine Jardine, Wera Hobhouse, Layla Moran, Daisy Cooper, Munira Wilson, Sarah Olney, Alex Davies-Jones, Claire Hanna and Karin Smyth, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report on the use of official development assistance to increase the availability of women’s sanitary products; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March, and to be printed (Bill 100).
June Bank Holiday (Creation)
Wednesday 4th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate June Bank Holiday (Creation) Bill 2019-21 View all June Bank Holiday (Creation) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for an annual national public holiday on the Friday nearest to 23 June; and for connected purposes.
I thank my excellent senior parliamentary assistant, Jordan Ayres, for his help with this.
This public holiday will be called United Kingdom Day. In the recent Queen’s Speech, the Government included an employment Bill, which is intended to
“Protect and enhance workers’ rights”
in the UK post Brexit, and one very important issue that the Government should consider when enhancing workers’ rights is that of public holidays. In England and Wales, we have only eight of those each year. We have the lowest number of bank holidays in Europe—Germany has nine; France, Poland and Italy have 11; Greece and Belgium have 12; Austria has 13; Malta has 14; and Cyprus has 17. In the ranking of public holidays throughout the world, the UK is drastically low, at 226th out of 246 countries.
Given that ours is the fifth largest economy in the world, and given that we have world-leading experts on medical research, financial services, aerospace technology, artificial intelligence, electronic systems and much more, it is time that the Government recognised the tremendous work carried out by British people. If we are serious about wanting to enhance workers’ rights, let us at least create one extra bank holiday. Critics will argue that businesses will have to absorb an extra day of paid leave for their workers, but every four years, owing to the leap year, millions of people up and down the country already work an extra day for free on 29 February.
I spent more than 30 years in business, and anyone who has run a business knows that its success is down not to them, but to the quality and productivity of their employees. Companies do not succeed by making workers work as for many hours as possible; they succeed if their employees are happy and productive.
Apart from those in Northern Ireland, there are no bank holidays between May and August, and a bank holiday in June would help to break up that long gap. Workers would have a day off to look forward to, at a time when the weather should be good, which would not only have a positive effect on their health and wellbeing, but be a great boost to their productivity, in turn helping businesses to thrive and prosper.
There are a number of reasons why the Friday nearest to 23 June each year should be the new bank holiday. First, the second Monday in June is Her Majesty’s official birthday. She is the longest-serving monarch in our history, and this would be a fantastic opportunity to celebrate her service and dedication to our great country. Moreover, the Queen was crowned in June. Throughout the intervening time, she has been a steadfast and devoted monarch. It would be fitting to allow the people of the United Kingdom to celebrate Her Majesty’s birthday, all her wonderful achievements, and the way in which she guides the country through all its highs and lows.
Since 2003, 23 June has already been recognised as United Nations Public Service Day, so it is a wonderful opportunity to pay tribute to the fantastic people who work in our public services—those in our national health service, armed forces, police, fire services and schools, and all the many, many others who are unsung heroes. Unfortunately, however, the occasion has barely been recognised in the United Kingdom, and I believe it is time we corrected that. Millions of people devote their lives to public service and make great sacrifices for the good of the country. They deserve our thanks and recognition for their services, and by creating this public holiday, we would be giving them just that.
Of course, 23 June 2016 was the day on which the United Kingdom voted on our membership of the European Union, in the largest act of democratic participation that the country has ever seen—33,551,983 people voted in the referendum. According to the Office for National Statistics, that figure is higher than that of the whole UK workforce. During the referendum, I worked alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) and Councillor Helen Harrison, travelling the length and breadth of the United Kingdom on behalf of the cross-party campaign group Grassroots Out. Whether we were in Glasgow, Newport, Belfast or London, and whether the people whom we met were big Brexiteers or real remainers, the public were energised. Fundamentally, the people of the United Kingdom were engaged. Many felt for the first time that their vote really mattered, and, indeed, many voted for the first time.
Whether those people felt happy or sad about the outcome, nothing in history has invigorated the country as much as that political debate. The outcome of the vote has changed our relationship with Europe forever. We did not do this through revolution, we did not do it through war, and we did not do it through violence. Millions of people did not lose their lives. Instead, it was done peacefully—it was done through the ballot box. I remember the Cameron Government saying, “The people aren’t interested in the EU,” and, “We should stop banging on about Europe.” How wrong could they be?
As for the current Government, they have been quite sniffy about my Bill to create a new bank holiday entitled United Kingdom Day, which has rather surprised and disappointed me. I can understand the former Government’s reservations, as they always saw the UK’s leaving the EU as a duty rather than an opportunity. However, the present Government wholeheartedly believe in it, so my question to them would be, “Why not mark this great democratic event?”
Finally, why do we not we celebrate our United Kingdom? We do not have a day to do so. Many countries throughout the world celebrate their national day with a public holiday. For example, France has Bastille Day, Canada has Canada Day, Sweden has the National Day of Sweden, and the United States, of course, has Independence Day. However, there is no day in the year on which we celebrate the Union of our four great nations as one United Kingdom. I believe that that should be corrected, and that the people of this country should be able to come together and rejoice as one. I do not believe that there is anyone in our great United Kingdom who does not support either the monarchy, the referendum, our public services, or the Union—surely everyone supports at least one of them—but if there is a handful of people who reject all those things, they can always work on United Kingdom Day.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Peter Bone, Mr John Baron, Sir Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Dr Julian Lewis, Andrew Rosindell, Nigel Mills, Esther McVey, Graham Stringer, Henry Smith, Sammy Wilson and Mr William Wragg present the Bill.
Mr Peter Bone accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 June, and to be printed (Bill 101).
Opposition Day
Flooding
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 227 / Noes: 328 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the damage caused by Storms Ciara, Dennis and Jorge and expresses thanks to workers from the Environment Agency, emergency services, local councils and volunteers; and calls for Ministers to set up an independent review into the floods, including the Government’s response, the adequacy of the funding provided for flood defences and prevention, difficulties facing homes and businesses with getting insurance and what lessons need to be learnt in light of the climate emergency and the increased likelihood of flooding in the future.
It is a pleasure to move this motion on flooding on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition. Flooding has devastated our communities after three successive storms—Ciara, Dennis and Jorge—each compounding and deepening the damage caused by the storm that preceded it. I start by paying my respects to those who lost their lives as a result of these storms. I also thank all those involved in mitigating and fighting the floods: our fire and rescue service, police, local councils, the Environment Agency, and all who have helped to protect homes and businesses, rescue people and animals from rising flood waters, and reinforce flood defences. The motion thanks them for their service.
The motion also pays tribute to the work of the BBC in keeping communities informed about flooding incidents, diversions and emergency measures. BBC local radio, in particular, but BBC Online as well, have been invaluable lifelines to those communities under water. I hope the Secretary of State will add his voice to mine in thanking them when he gets to his feet.
It would be very easy to dismiss the recent flooding as a freak accident, an act of God, and leave it at that, but we need to take a difficult step and recognise that more could have been done. As the climate crisis produces more severe weather more often, we will be having more flooding more often, so we need to learn the lessons.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
As the climate emergency produces more and more flooding, so flooding will become more frequent, and yet the resources for the Environment Agency have been severely cut over the last decade. Does the hon. Member agree we need long-term, not just short-term, funding for the Environment Agency?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member pre-empts my speech. It is important that we have a long-term plan for flooding with long-term funding attached to it so that we can protect communities at risk of flooding.
We know that more could have been done to ensure that our fire and rescue services were fully equipped to deal with this national emergency; that more could have been done to put in place long-term flood defences; and that more could have been done to slow down the impact of the climate emergency.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I recently visited a natural flood management project in the Wychwoods, in my constituency, a partnership project with local councils, Wild England and many others, involving flood diversion, wildlife creation, habitat, leaky dams and so forth. It has been very valuable in protecting the villages of the Wychwoods. Is this something we could see much more of elsewhere?
Luke Pollard
Having more natural solutions to flooding is part of the solution; it is not the sole solution, but it is a very important part, and I will come on to that in a moment.
Our motion makes a very simple ask—one that I am amazed but not surprised that Ministers are running from: that we have an investigation to learn the lessons from the floods, an investigation that will seek to protect more homes and businesses in the future, an investigation that will look at the difficulties people encounter in buying affordable insurance for their homes and businesses and in receiving timely pay-outs, an investigation into what measures are required from Government to fund flood protections and upstream catchment management measures and to resource emergency responses.
When choosing the wording of the motion, the Opposition had two choices: we could have chosen wording that went hard on a part-time Prime Minister who was missing in action throughout the floods, a part-time Prime Minister who refused to call a Cobra meeting and unlock the scale of funding necessary for flooded communities, a part-time Prime Minister who failed to show national leadership when it was required; or we could choose wording that could unify the House in a sensible effort to learn the lessons, calmly and sincerely, from this disastrous series of floods. Labour chose to rise above that partisan debate, which is why every single Member of the House should feel able to support our motion. How is learning the lessons from an incident—in a review of what actions took place, what actions did not work as well as was hoped and of where improvements could be made—not a sensible and proportionate step to take after a national emergency such as the recent floods?
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I represent the most flood prone constituency in the country—my constituents are presently under 400 million cubic metres of water. How does the hon. Member envisage this inquiry working with the section 19 inquiries already commenced in my area and in many other flooded areas, given that their purpose is to determine exactly those things.
Luke Pollard
There will be local inquiries and there will be different agencies looking at their own responses, but we need an overarching investigation into the whole response—the consequences of austerity, the flood prevention measures that could and should be taken, the fact that flooding will become more frequent, and so on. That is what is on the table in the motion today and what I hope hon. Members on both sides will vote for.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
In light of the fact that places such as the Calder Valley have had three 100-year floods in the last seven and a half years, does the hon. Member not think that another review would only cost more money and waste more time? We need action. We already have this information. We know exactly what happened in the floods. We had four times the monthly average rainfall in 24 hours.
Luke Pollard
I agree we need action, but it was action we did not get during the floods. It was action we required from the Prime Minister to call a Cobra meeting that we did not get. It was action to unlock the necessary funding that we did not get. I agree we need action and hope he will support this motion so that we get a lessons learned review that helps Ministers to make better decisions next time and get the action he desperately wants.
The review we are asking for would look at how we learn lessons as a country, how the Government learn lessons and how the work and innovations of local communities can be recognised, but the Government’s amendment seeks to do only one thing: not learn the lessons of the flooding. It would delete the lessons learned review and silence the voices of flooded communities. I want the voices of those communities under water heard in the review we are proposing. I want to hear from the small business owners in Telford whose shops have been flooded about the difficulties they face replacing stock when insurance companies refuse to insure them. I want to hear from the farmers next to the River Severn who fear that their crops will have been destroyed by the water damage in their fields. I want to hear from the homeowners in west Yorkshire who have yet again had to wash dirty water from their homes, wash the smell of sewage from their homes, replace their furniture and carpets and worry about whether the insurance will pay out and how much the premiums will be next year, if they are to be covered at all. I want to hear the voices of the emergency services who have had their numbers cut and cut again by years of Tory austerity. I want to hear from the Welsh coal mining communities who are now living in fear of a landslide from water-sodden spoil tips.
I want to hear from all of them in this review, and yet Ministers have proposed an amendment that says they will not have a lessons learned review, will not look at what worked well and what did not, and will not ask communities what works for them. Every Tory MP who votes against our motion will be doing something very simple: refusing to listen and learn the lessons of the flooding and refusing to improve their response to flooding in a calm and independent manner. Those under water communities, many of which are represented by Conservative MPs, will wonder what happened to their Members of Parliament. When given an opportunity to get the voice of those communities heard, they will have decided to turn against that—that is not leadership.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The hon. Member talked about the role of insurance companies. I chair the all-party group on insurance and financial services and work quite closely with Flood Re. Since it was launched in 2016, Flood Re has been a great example of the Government and the insurance industry working together: 300,000 more properties have now been insured and four out of five properties with previous flood claims can now get insurance at half the price it was before. I am sure he will welcome that fact. It is a great example of the Government working with the industry to help solve this problem.
Luke Pollard
Flood Re has resulted in some improvements—the hon. Gentleman is right about that—but it does not insure homes or provide cover for homes built since 2009, and he will know that it does not include support for small businesses, so there are huge holes in the scheme that need to be filled. We need a scheme that works. At the moment, Flood Re is not delivering as was originally intended for all affected communities. The Government are carrying out a review of the Flood Re scheme, and I urge Ministers to encourage it to report quickly, because we need the Flood Re scheme to work properly to ensure that there are no gaps in it.
The reason that we are calling for a review today is that the flood waters will, we hope, soon subside and the camera crews will pack up, but as the media agenda moves on, the damage, disruption and destruction of the floods will remain for those communities that have been affected. It will take many months for those communities to recover, but we know from past floods that it will actually take many years for the damage to be undone, for payments to be received and for the mitigations to be put in place. That is why a lessons learned review is so important.
We know that the Prime Minister was missing during the floods, but he now has an opportunity to create a lessons learned review to learn the lessons of what has happened. However, he has decided against doing that. We know that the Conservatives’ political choice to implement a programme of brutal austerity over the past 10 years has made the fight against the climate crisis so much harder. The Environment Agency has again and again asked for extra money—£1 billion a year just to mitigate the impacts of floods and defend our communities. We need long-term structural change if we are to combat future floods, including restoring nature in uplands, ending the rotational burning of peatlands, implementing proper catchment area management strategies and building proper flood defences where appropriate. All these changes need genuine funding and a long-term plan.
But it is not just the Environment Agency that has been cut; our local councils have too, and our fire and rescue services. There is a regional disparity in the cuts for fire and rescue services as well. Across England, 23% of our firefighters have been lost in Tory cuts since 2010, but West Yorkshire, where some of the most severe flooding has happened, has lost over a third of its firefighters in austerity cuts. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) has raised this issue directly with Ministers before, but I would like to invite the Secretary of State to look again at whether fire and rescue services need a statutory duty around flooding, as they have in Scotland and Wales.
It is also important that we look at the effect of the flooding on our farmers. That includes considering short-term actions such as a derogation of crop diversification and a reinstatement of the farming recovery fund to mitigate the damage that flooding has caused. The Secretary of State came unstuck at the NFU conference and answered concerns about the three-crop rule very poorly, but there is now a genuine opportunity to help farmers by using the powers that he already has to support them. In the long term, we need to ensure that our farmland is used sensibly to prevent flooding and to restore the ability to keep more water upstream.
We also need to recognise the need for change on match-funding. I have raised this matter before. Poorer communities should not be asked to match the same as wealthier communities, because we know that in that situation the wealthier communities have their flood defences funded and the poor ones do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) has raised this in relation to her city time and again, but she has still not had a satisfactory answer. The Budget next week is an opportunity for Ministers to fund flood defences properly. I would like to see the Budget used as a climate budget to recognise the true scale of the climate crisis and have funding directed accordingly. I suspect we will not have that, but I hope there will be some mention of flooding. I hope that funding will be directed at those communities that are currently under water and that a long-term plan is put in place in relation to this.
We have our criticisms of the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, for failing to act with the seriousness that the climate emergency requires, but setting that aside, we have before us in this motion a modest proposal to learn the lessons of the three storms and to conduct an independent review into what happened. We owe it to those communities that are currently under water, those that have been flooded and those that are repairing the damage from the storms to listen to them and to do everything in our power to learn the lessons to ensure that it does not happen again.
I say to every Tory MP whose communities are under water and who votes against this modest ask that I wish them well on their return to their flooded communities. I wish them well in explaining why a review into the lessons learned will not be happening and why they voted against it. I wish them well in explaining to the people whose homes and businesses were flooded why they are denying them a voice. I wish them well in that, because they have the chance today to vote for such an independent review, and for those flooded communities, that will be a very modest ask as they scrub their floors to clean up the sewage that has come through the pipes, as they repair their homes and as they work out how to restore the stock in their businesses that have been so damaged. For them, this is a modest ask, and it is something that should be supported by everyone in this House. I hope that Tory MPs will reflect on this before they back the Government’s amendment to not learn the lessons of the flooding incidents. I hope that, as a Parliament, we can come together on this. I hope that the warm words that will be no doubt come from the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box in a moment can be added to with the action that is so desperately needed. I commend this Labour motion to the House.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I beg to move an amendment, leave out from “volunteers” to end and insert:
“acknowledges that following the Pitt Review in 2008, local and national response was significantly improved through the establishment of Local Resilience Forums which have led to partnership working and in addition, the Cross Review in 2018 which led to the publication of new guidance on multi-agency flood plans; further acknowledges that following the National Flood Resilience Review in 2016 there were further improvements through the establishment of the National Flood Response Centre and improved weather and flood forecasting capabilities, but recognises that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and that further investment in flood defence infrastructure will be necessary in the years ahead.”
We have had three storms in three weeks affecting our Union, from Cornwall right up to the north of Scotland and Northern Ireland, with winds of up to 70 mph and waves of snow, ice and rain, making this the wettest February on record. Many areas have already received more than double their average rainfall for February. Some have received four times the average monthly rainfall and others have experienced a month’s worth of rain in just 24 hours. Eighteen river gauges across 13 rivers recorded their highest levels on record during, or triggered by, Storms Ciara, Dennis or Jorge. These are records that no one wants to see broken. Even if there are no further significant storms in March, it could still take three to four weeks for water to drain from the washlands in the East Yorkshire area.
These storms at the end of an incredibly wet winter have brought consequences across the country as river systems were overwhelmed. Nothing can diminish the suffering felt across our country in communities affected by recent storms. Experiencing flooding, especially repeated flooding, is traumatic and distressing for the communities affected, and sadly over 3,400 properties have been flooded this February, with significant damage caused.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that too much building on floodplains is not helpful and that in future we should be much more restrictive and then try to deal with the backlog problem?
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee on all planning applications.
This is a live incident, so I urge vigilance as we monitor the situation and move into a recovery phase. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Environment Agency, local authorities and emergency services, including the fire brigade, which has been engaged extensively, the paramedics and the many voluntary groups that have played a role and, of course, local TV and radio, which have played their part—[Interruption.] And the BBC, which is a great part of local TV and radio.
I have been in close contact with the Environment Agency every single day. More than 1,000 of its staff have been deployed across the country every day, putting up temporary barriers, clearing rivers of debris—a continuing role for the EA—and helping with evacuations where necessary. They have been deployed alongside around 80 military personnel who stepped in to assist in certain circumstances. Wales has also seen significant impacts, with more than 1,000 properties flooded. The EA remains in close contact with the Welsh Government, who are offering aid and support it might need to respond to their incidents. Some Members have expressed concern about the stability of some coal tips. My colleague, the Secretary State for Wales, has been in dialogue with the Welsh Government about this and, following that, we directed the national Coal Authority to conduct an urgent assessment of those tips where there were concerns.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
On the point about the coal tips, will the Secretary of State confirm that this is not just a review of where they all are, and that the UK Government will fund the safety of those tips to reassure residents living in fear across constituencies represented by three Members here today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter)?
George Eustice
I know that the Secretary of State for Wales has had discussions with the Welsh Government. In their discussions last week, there was no request for funds as it was too early to ascertain what help, if any, might be needed, but once that work is concluded by the national Coal Authority, they will be in a better position to know that.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I think the Secretary of State is slightly misunderstanding the point here. This is not about the financial request from the Welsh Assembly to this Government. This is about the tips in constituencies such as mine, where there is significant concern that there may be further movement and greater destabilisation of the slag heaps. That is the responsibility of his Government—the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—and we need to ensure that the Government are doing everything to ensure that the people in my constituency are safe.
George Eustice
That is correct, and the national Coal Authority sits within BEIS. We have directed it to carry out an urgent assessment of those mines.
The area that was worst affected by Storm Ciara was the Calder valley. Hebden Bridge flooded after Storm Ciara, but not after Storm Dennis. Many businesses there have adapted their buildings to flooding, which were back trading after a few days or weeks. The military were deployed to Ilkley in West Yorkshire, where 700 metres of temporary barriers were erected. They also worked in the Calder valley, building a temporary defence and sandbagging properties. The scheme in Mytholmroyd is due to be completed this summer, and further schemes are in the design and consultation phase at Hebden Bridge, Brighouse, Sowerby Bridge and other locations along the Calder valley.
The area most severely affected by Storm Dennis was the Severn catchment. Since 2007, many parts of the Severn have been protected by demountable barriers. Those barriers are deployed to hard standings and permanent pillars along the river bank and removed when the risk of flooding recedes, so that people can gain access to the river for cycle paths and to prevent views from being affected. Those demountable barriers have been particularly popular with communities and have been effective during this most recent episode. While some homes were flooded, the defences put in place have protected around 50,000 homes.
Tenbury Wells was the first place to be affected by Storm Dennis and had previously flooded in October. Soon after flood alerts were issued, community information officers assisted residents in the town. Sadly, the area of Tenbury is not suitable for temporary barrier deployment due to the length of defence needed, significant access issues and the need for pumps to mitigate water seepage on uneven ground. However, in our future programme, we are developing plans to deliver a scheme at Tenbury Wells protecting over 80 homes and 80 businesses and costing in the region of £6 million, and we are seeking partnership funding to develop that phased approach. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) and the local county councillor have been keen advocates of the proposed scheme and have discussed it with me.
In Selby, where there were concerns about water over- topping a flood retention bank, the Army were on standby but, in the event, Environment Agency and local authority staff deployed 3,000 sandbags to top up the defences, build the bank higher and ensure that there was protection.
Turning now to Shrewsbury and Bewdley, where demountable barriers along the Severn played an important role in reducing the impacts, there are four phases of demountable barriers deployed to protect infrastructure and properties in Shrewsbury, and all were deployed in time for Storm Dennis. In Bewdley, we also deployed demountable barriers to complement the permanent defences and temporary barriers in part of the town. Environment Agency staff were present throughout the flooding, checking those barriers and pumping water back into the river.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for talking about my constituency, and thank the floods Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), for being there to see the demountable barrier being put up on the very first day. The demountable barriers are one of the finest gifts that one of the best leaders of the Labour party, Mr Tony Blair, has ever given us—in 2001, I think, with an £11 million investment. But the problem for Bewdley remains Beales Corner, on the other side of the bank. This highlights the difference between what is a demountable barrier and what is a dangerous temporary barrier, which gave way and was overtopped. A not-very-good approach was developed at Beales Corner, which is the property-led defences. I do not think they worked in the event of this flood.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I was going to go on to say that the temporary barriers deployed to the Beales Corner area of Bewdley were overtopped by the sheer volume of water flowing through the town. Environment Agency staff deployed pumps to mitigate the overtopping, but eventually this operation was overwhelmed. I know that staff have continually provided updates to residents via local media, with live-streamed videos from site and post-strategic command meetings to inform the public.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is interesting to hear the individual cases, but does the Secretary of State not accept that it is 12 years since the Pitt review and that it is only another 10 years—less than that period—until we expect and predict that climate change will result in a 1.5° increase in temperature? Therefore, we want not a microcosmic look at individual demountables, but an overview of the strategic difference climate change will make—namely, where can we and should we defend? Where can we not defend? Where do we have to change land use management? Where do we have to have rain water capture in urban environments? Where do we have to have underground tunnels and so on? We need an overall review. We face massive and growing risk. He says, “Oh, let’s hope we don’t have more bad weather.” That is—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman wishes to make a speech, but he is taking his own time away.
George Eustice
I am going to address all those points of review later, but I wanted to take the opportunity, since this does not always happen, to effectively acknowledge some of the great work that has been done on the ground by the Environment Agency and our emergency services.
In Ironbridge, the substructure of the soil along the riverbank sadly does not lend itself to the demountable barriers that were so effective in other towns, but temporary barriers were deployed to contain the water that breached the river bank, with 800 metres of temporary barriers deployed along the Wharfage.
While most effects in the days after Storm Dennis were felt along the Severn, there was further heavy rain late last week, which led to major challenges in parts of Yorkshire, notably around the washlands at Snaith and East Cowick. The washlands are one of the oldest man-made flood defence systems in the country, dating back some 400 years. However, the sheer volume of rainfall meant that they were overwhelmed. We have deployed 48 multi-agency pumps in operation across the Aire washlands, as water levels start to drop, to dewater homes. There is an urgency to this work, since next weekend we will also see peak seasonal tides on the east coast, which can lock rivers. We must therefore use the window of opportunity in the weeks ahead.
The motion tabled by the Opposition suggests an independent inquiry. I am grateful for this opportunity to describe all the other inquiries that we have had on flood response over the last decade or so and what actions have been taken to implement those recommendations. First, the Pitt review, which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and which followed the 2007 floods, informed new laws better to manage flooding under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The crucial recommendations of the review regarding flood response led to the establishment of local resilience forums.
Richard Graham
I am grateful. A lot of the Pitt review recommendations were implemented in Gloucester at that time and have made a huge difference. My neighbours suffered terribly this year. None the less, not a single home in Gloucester flooded, as a result of good work by the Environment Agency and local councils.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point.
Secondly, after the 2014 floods, another review was led by Oliver Letwin. It led to a number of further improvements, including the establishment of a new national flood response centre, based out of the Cabinet Office, to ensure that cross-government decisions on operational matters were taken expeditiously. The review also led to improved flood forecasting capabilities.
Thirdly, because there were concerns that some local authorities were better prepared than others to meet the challenge of flood response, in 2018 the Cross review recommended that every local authority should have a formal plan of action to respond to flood risk in its area.
The substantive recommendations in all three of those reviews have been implemented, and it is because they have been implemented that the response on the ground to these extraordinary weather events has been so effective and rapid. The Government amendment to the motion therefore recognises and corrects what might be an oversight in the Opposition motion, which is to recognise what has been done in response to previous reviews.
The Government amendment also corrects another omission from the Opposition motion, relating to funding. Climate change means that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent.
Several hon. Members rose—
George Eustice
I am going to make progress and conclude.
We are investing £2.6 billion in flood defences—over 1,000 flood defence schemes to better protect 300,000 homes by 2021. To date, we have completed 600 of those schemes, protecting over 200,000 homes. Were it not for projects such as those, 50,000 more homes would have been flooded in these recent events.
However, there is more to do. That is why the Government have a manifesto commitment to spend even more on flood defence in the years ahead, committing £4 billion in this Parliament further to improve our resilience and our ability to manage such events. The Government amendment, rather than proposing reviewing funding as the Opposition suggest, acknowledges the need for further investment. Our manifesto already commits us to further investment. I hope that this investment will not be opposed by Opposition Members.
We are determined to be ready for the future, and we know we must expect more frequent extreme weather in this country. So as well as investing even more money in flood defence, the Government are committed to leading a global response to climate change through our work around the world. As host of the next climate change conference, COP26, we will urge nations to achieve net zero in a way that helps nature recover, reduces global warming and addresses the causes of these extreme weather events.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There will be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches because a lot of Members have, quite rightly, shown an interest in this important subject.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for moving this motion and for helping hon. Members on both sides of the House highlight the devastating impact of recent storms on communities across these islands. I support the motion and its ambition to establish an independent review of flooding, which seems to me to be an uncontentious, non-political and constructive approach to a serious issue that affects all our communities.
As many of us in this Chamber will know from first- hand experience of supporting flood victims, flooding has many effects from the horrific effect of sewage backflow to the ever-present anxiety of wondering when the next episode will happen. This affects my constituents in Angus, and we are right across the spectrum in having successful flood mitigation measures installed but also having communities that are still exposed to the full force of the weather. Scoping, funding and delivering flood defence schemes is, of course, a challenging process, as they are, after all, complex civil engineering projects.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as the Secretary of State was unable to do so.
We have funding for a flood defence scheme in my constituency, but one of the barriers is that the Environment Agency does not have enough staff to bring the scheme forward or to offer support. Should this not just be about physical infrastructure but about the Environment Agency having more funding to expand its team?
Dave Doogan
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand if I hesitate to comment on the Environment Agency, as my part of these islands is much more dependent on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which I am happy to talk up. I am aware of the genuine concern among colleagues about the lag between the establishment of a requirement and the delivery of a system on the ground, which is something a review would wish to consider.
These complex civil engineering projects are usually towards the top end of cost and capital investment in local communities, and any assessment of return on that capital investment should, of course, be robust and realistic. Having said that, there is a risk that, in assessing the value for money of any proposed scheme, we use the narrowest definition of value such as property prices or other one-dimensional and binary judgments.
Planners and government, both local and national, must increasingly consider broader priorities such as employment, cultural and community value, and the value of agricultural land in deciding whether to protect them. Moreover, any assessment that builds a business case for defence schemes on residential property prices and that seeks to use those property prices as the principal determinant will necessarily favour more affluent areas of these islands for investment, rather than considering all areas equally and on their merits.
A much more preventive approach to sustainable flood management and mitigation needs to be pursued, and pursued at pace, if we are to stand a realistic chance of managing weather events that, hitherto, would have been classified as once-in-100-years events but are now apparently much more common. This dynamic endeavour requires government, local and national, to get a grip, provide investment and transact innovation.
Every SNP Member wishes to pay tribute to the first-class response to the recent severe weather in our part of these islands by local authorities, emergency responders, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and, of course, the public who, in all our constituencies, went above and beyond what is reasonably expected of individuals to help protect themselves and their neighbours.
In February, the First Minister of Scotland visited Hawick and the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment visited Newcastleton, two of the most badly affected areas in Scotland. That is in stark contrast to the Prime Minister, who spent the same period of flooding relaxing at Chequers. At such times of crisis, a key role for a leader is to provide confidence to the public and show them that their Government are responding. Boris Johnson has utterly failed that simplest test of leadership.
In Scotland, the SNP Scottish Government will continue to work to support local authorities to deliver the actions that protect our communities and businesses. Again, we come back to planning. Planning work is expected to start on the 42 prioritised schemes. It is recognised that those schemes might not be delivered, but it is important for residents and constituents to understand that they are planned for.
Regardless of where we live, work or legislate, innovation has to take centre stage. A principal element of that has to be upstream aggradation and the retention of run-off, with more appropriate land management strategies that, as a public good, landowners may be rewarded for and that will hold back deluge events from entering our main rivers and tributaries all at once.
Simultaneously, we need to consider planning legislation in all the different elements of the United Kingdom to make sure that, with the increasing pattern of people having smaller gardens or no garden, there are corresponding mitigation measures that will assist in the attenuation of deluges and flood waters.
Tenants and residents need to be protected and, as other hon. Members have mentioned, there needs to be far greater investment in maintenance of the disaggregation of risk in insurance. Quite apart from the physical, tangible elements, anxiety is a cruel master when it comes to flooding, and insurance is directly connected to that. I accept what hon. Members have said about the progress that has been made, but it needs to be built upon and expanded.
Finally, any review must work with all UK environment agencies, including the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, to establish best practice and to foster the innovation we so desperately need.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The five-minute rule is now effective.
Just a gentle reminder: please do not refer to Members by name. Refer to them either by their constituency or by their official title.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The constituency in which I live and am proud to serve is the most flood-prone constituency in the country, as it is constituted on land drained by the Dutch some 400 years ago, many of whose descendants continue to live in our area. We are at the bottom of the catchment, so I agree 100% with what the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) says about the need for better management upstream.
We have seen numerous events in recent years, whether the tidal surge of 2013, the flooding of 2010 and 2011 in Goole or the flooding in December, which happened on a smaller scale. Whether in Crowle, South Ferriby or Burringham, or whether in Snaith, Cowick or Gowdall at the moment, we are repeatedly hit by incidents of flooding.
I begin by paying tribute to my constituents and how they are currently responding to the incredible deluge in Snaith and Cowick. I have been involved in flooding for many years as an MP, parish councillor and councillor, and I have never seen the inundation of water that we now see in the washlands of the River Aire.
My constituents are responding in an incredible way. The Snaith church ladies and our wonderful vicar, Eleanor Robertshaw—I sometimes call her the “commie vicar” but we are good friends—have been providing 24/7 support to those who have been evacuated and to emergency service responders, with free food being provided by many businesses, including the Supreme coffee house in Goole. The response of the community has been incredible.
I thank Vicky Whiteley and Snaith and Cowick Town Council, the Snaith sports hall voluntary team and Andy McLachlan of the Cowick and Snaith internal drainage board for their work in supporting my constituents. Andy and I have worked together on many flooding events over the years, and the response from the drainage board has, as ever, been first class. I also wish to thank the fire and rescue service, including those who have come in from elsewhere, from places such as Cheshire and West Yorkshire, and our ambulance service, which has been on hand with permanent resources. I should also thank the very many residents involved, the council staff and the Environment Agency staff. The response has been incredible. We are dealing with 4 million cubic metres of water, or 800 million gallons, still there, in an area below sea level. We are defended by hundreds of miles of defence banks in our area, and getting that away will be a big challenge.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Although we must not be complacent, does my hon. Friend recognise that in some parts of the country there have been successes? In the Carlisle area, through the work of the EA, the councils and the voluntary sector, and the success of the defences, we managed to avoided being flooded this year.
Andrew Percy
Indeed. We have not wanted for money for defence funding in recent years, including in Snaith, the community that is currently flooded. Only in 2015, millions of pounds of defence improvements were made, through the piling of the Snaith primary defence bank, but that has been overtopped this time, as have our secondary defences, on which we rely to keep us dry. It is true to say that in some places these schemes have worked, and we have a scheme under way in South Ferriby, but the water coming down the catchment in this latest incident has been on a scale we have never seen before, just as the 2013 surge then was.
I agree with some of what was said by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). He is a nice guy, one of my favourite shadow Secretaries of State. Some of the others are a bit bonkers, and I know that he agrees with me on that. I agree with much of what he said about the need to review certain things, but he then went on to try to make some cheap political points about what is going on at the moment. There are things we need to do differently, but I am not convinced that diverting millions of pounds, which could otherwise go to flood defences, to a massive inquiry is necessarily the best way forward. I will say something on that in a moment.
What we need now in my constituency is immediate funding, into the future, to look at what we can do for the defences that have been so overrun on this occasion. After the 2013 tidal surge, additional funding was made available to the communities in my area that had been devastated by that surge to allow them to take immediate defence action in the year or two afterwards. That was outside the normal funding rules, and we benefited from that in Reedness, which was overwhelmed in the tidal surge, with immediate action to shore up and improve the defence there. So may we please look at that issue?
May we also look at the funding for the section 19 inquiries that are already under way. My local East Riding of Yorkshire Council, because it has faced so many incidents in recent months, is now engaged in about four or five different inquiries, and funding that is a huge challenge for the local authority. A section 19 inquiry into the flooding in the Snaith and Cowick washlands is under way, but we need funding for that. The recovery of costs is also an issue. Heating Snaith priory church has already cost the church about £700 to £800, and possibly more. We are all doing what we can to get donations in for that, and the Bellwin scheme might cover it, but there are direct costs here to the town council and to the church and sports hall—voluntary organisations—for the costs they have borne in being open 24 hours a day and providing support to those who have been evacuated.
Business support is also an issue. I served on the Committee for the Flood Re Bill. Indeed, in 2013 I had to leave the Committee because of the flood warnings in place in my constituency, including warnings for my own house, when that tidal surge hit. We need extra support in terms of business insurance. I do not have time to say everything I wanted to stay, but I beg that the national funding formula is looked at. We are at the bottom of the catchment and we get everybody’s water; that water is coming to us, whether we like it or not. Although the current formula provides us with the best defences and highest standards, it is not taking account of the number of properties we have versus the risk we face. We need a change to that. We also need to look at the EA’s role in flooding and whether we need a separate body. We need to examine the Flood Re scheme. We need to fund the national flood resilience centre, in my area, the bid for which is with the Government—I have talked about that before. Finally, we need to look at planning and at maintenance.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is extremely good of you to call me, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that I can say a little about the issue of flooding, why it has been so important to my constituency and how it has affected us, and add my unequivocal voice to the call for more resources for this area. I also wish to say that there are some legal, technical issues that the Government need to address in respect of flooding and the management of waterways.
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who described the conditions in his constituency and how flooding affects it. I therefore wish to say a bit about the geography of my area. The towns of Stalybridge, Hyde, Dukinfield, Mossley and Longdendale are on the eastern side of Greater Manchester, at the border with Derbyshire. We are where the land has begun to rise; the great moors of Wild Bank, Harridge Pike and Hobson moor are in my constituency. People might recall that two years ago there were wildfires in that area, which tells us of the volatility of the weather patterns we are now receiving.
When we have these occasions of unprecedented rainfall—it seems to be unprecedented rainfall more often than not—the water comes down from those moors with a violence, intensity and power that has a severe impact on the communities based around those moors. In 2016 in particular, when we had severe flooding, areas such as Hollingworth, Millbrook and Micklehurst were incredibly badly affected, and not just in terms of flooding; in one case, a property was almost washed away. This is not just about flooding; it is about land and property being destroyed by the power of the floods that have hit those areas. The impact and burden on people of severe flooding is unparalleled and hard to compare with other things. One constituent told me that they had been flooded once before and so every time they are faced with significant rainfall—obviously, that is a feature of our weather patterns in Greater Manchester—they just stay up at night waiting to be flooded again. That trauma and worry—the emotional as well as the financial burden—is extreme. We have to be doing more to ease that burden on our constituents.
Since 2016, there has been a significant response in my area. I know that colleagues will talk today about how they have not had any resources at all, but we have had investment in my area. The Environment Agency has spent more than £1 million in Mossley, and my local council has spent more than £650,000. This has meant we can have things such as large screens that we can put across culverts to prevent them from getting blocked. In some cases, tunnels have been built to manage the water run-off on to highways. In one case, a culvert has been repaired and it is now monitored by CCTV 24 hours a day. However, constituents ask the reasonable question: will these measures prevent this from happening again? Of course, none of us can give that assurance, so perhaps a better question would be: has everything that could be done been done? I do not think we are there yet, so although we have had investment in my area, I know it is not enough and therefore that we need more across the country. If we multiply the investment in my area by the number of constituencies in the country, that tells us quickly that we do not yet have the level of support going into this that we all want to see.
Wera Hobhouse
On mitigation of climate change and flood risk, the restoration of peatland is very important, and I know that the Government are committed to that. The burning of peatland by the grouse shooting industry is damaging, and businesses that counteract good measures have to be addressed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to engage with industries that are counteracting climate emergency measures?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. Grouse shooting is a business in my constituency. I am not sure how much proportionality one can put on what she has described compared with other measures, but this has to be part of the conversation, because many expert analyses have identified it is a factor. Therefore, it has to be looked at.
Austerity has also been an issue in this—that cannot be denied. I have seen it affect my constituency in two specific ways. There are 44,000 road gullies in my borough of Tameside and austerity has, in effect, meant that we went down to having one gully machine and just two highway engineers. That is in no way sufficient to cope with the gullies that need to be unblocked to make sure that we are as resilient as can be. We can perhaps now look to increase that provision, but the false economy of cuts, particularly to local government, should never have got us to that position.
I also think we need to refer to planning enforcement. New homes were mentioned in the Front-Bench contributions. My understanding is that new homes should not make any area more at risk of flooding, but there are severe issues in this country as to whether planning measures are met and whether we have the resources to enforce the measures that the Environment Agency wants to see put in place if the plans go ahead.
Finally, will the Minister respond to a specific point about legal responsibility for waterways? I understand the division of responsibility between the Environment Agency, lead flood authorities—basically councils, in areas like mine—and landowners, but I am not sure that it is right to strictly define landowners as responsible for culverts, or covered waterways. Many of my local towns expanded rapidly at the time of the industrial revolution, and there are not good records from that time. Sometimes we do not even know the exact path of a culvert through an area. Conveyancing should reveal that, but let us be honest: often it does not.
I have one particular case in which a culvert collapsed during the 2016 floods—we do not know whether that contributed to or was caused by the flooding—and residents of one block of flats built on the parcel of land through which the culvert runs are now being held responsible for costs that could reach more than £1 million. There are 90 flats in the development, but that would still be a substantial cost. That is not fair for the people in Bramble Court in Millbrook. It is not the right way to manage the risks. I am told by the Environment Agency that we do not even know who is responsible for some culverts. Yes, we need resources, but the legal definitions and responsibilities also need attention from the Government.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
In 2007, my constituency was badly flooded: three people tragically lost their lives, many lost their water supplies, quite a lot lost electricity and many people were out of their homes for 12 months, living in caravans. It was a desperately difficult time. Since then, a lot of good work has been done in various parts of my constituency, which has certainly helped, but nevertheless we have been flooded many times since, including in the last week and last November.
I wish to highlight two particular things that I feel really should be done. The first is relatively simple: we should clear out ditches more regularly and maintain drains better than we are, and we ought to consider whether we should dredge all rivers, because I understand that that has helped enormously in some areas of the country where it is done. We ought to revisit that policy.
Neil Parish
I thank my hon. Friend very much for giving way. There is no doubt that the dredging of the River Parrett where it goes out to sea in Somerset has been very effective; I wonder whether the Severn needs the same improvements.
Daniel Kawczynski
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. As he will know, the River Severn has flooded terribly in his constituency and mine. Does he agree that the Government need a more holistic approach to managing the whole of the River Severn, from my constituency right down to his?
Mr Robertson
I thank both my hon. Friends for those interventions, with which I agree. I must move on quickly because of the shortness of time.
The other issue that I wish to raise is house building, or any kind of building, in flood risk areas. It is causing an awful lot of trouble. In my constituency, the current joint core strategy proposes a 50% increase in the number of houses in the council area where I live. Not only does that increase mean that green-belt land is seriously compromised, but we have a lot of flood risk areas. The building of that number of houses in my area will cause an awful lot of misery for very many people.
I am concerned about our approach to building in flood risk areas. The Pitt report of some years ago was somewhat compromised: it said that yes, flood risk areas should be avoided, but it also said they should be avoided unless there was a need for a certain number of houses. I do not think that that compromise is necessary, because when somebody is flooded for more than a year, they really do not want to see more development in their area.
I am rather concerned about how the Environment Agency makes its assessments. It uses maps that in my view are not always accurate—they do not always reflect the flood risk in an area—and it talks about frequencies, but the frequencies of flooding have changed, with flooding now much more frequent than it used to be. Who knows where that trend will go in future?
We have heard it said that we do not really build in flood risk areas any more; we absolutely do. I have shown the Secretary of State a photograph of an industrial digger preparing land in my constituency for houses—and the digger is stood in water. Around 2,000 houses are going to be built on that land, which is already sodden and far too wet. It is a matter not only of whether the houses built on that land will flood, but of water displacement—will building on that land cause flooding for people in other areas? It is a serious consideration. Just this week the Environment Agency said that
“it isn’t always possible or practical to prevent all new development in flood risk areas”;
well, that is going to cause an awful lot of problems for very many people.
We really ought to revisit the policy. I know the driver behind it—I know that this Government and successive Governments have wanted to provide homes for people. I joined the Conservative party during Margaret Thatcher’s time, and one of her great policies was on home ownership, with which I entirely agreed. Home ownership is a fantastic aspiration, but we need to be careful about where we build houses. Building houses for the sake of it will not actually make them more affordable. We risk compromising the green belt and building in flood risk areas for no actual benefit to some of the people who are looking to buy houses.
I referred to the site in my area where an industrial digger is sat in water; that is at a place called Twigworth and Innsworth, where permission has been given not by the local council but by the inspector. The inspector looked at the application in December 2017 and should have rejected it, but the fact that the Environment Agency did not object to the development did not help. Everybody who lives in that area knows what a problem it is going to cause. I shall name one person who knows what a problem it is going to cause: David Cameron. In February 2014, he visited the area. Why? Because the road was completely blocked because of flooding and the fields where the development is now taking place were flooded. He declared then that building should not take place in such areas. What has gone wrong?
I pin no blame at all on the new Secretary of State—he is brand-new to his position and I wish him well—but I ask him to revisit the existing policy on assessing whether land is suitable for development. The surgery that I did at the weekend was very busy, full of people coming to complain about overdevelopment. I think the one message that they would like me to give to the Secretary of State is that we should review the policy before it is too late. Once we have built on land, we cannot unbuild on that land.
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour and I have recently discussed whether there were possible solutions in building more capacity in the Welsh hills to hold back water from the Severn. That would also give the Government an opportunity to ask Severn Trent Water to transport some of the water by pipe down to the areas in the south-east that suffer from a lack of water. Does my hon. Friend agree that that could be a useful contribution, saving his constituency and mine from being flooded?
Mr Robertson
My hon. Friend and neighbour makes a good point. Back in 2007, it was not only the water that fell in Tewkesbury that caused the problem; it was also the water that came down from Wales. I pin no blame at all for that on Wales—I would not dare with you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker—but my hon. Friend makes a good and serious point with which I agree.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who spoke powerfully about his local area and made some important points about planning.
Last November, my community was hit by severe flooding that caused devastating damage to Barnsley, and across South Yorkshire. Over a 24-hour period, more rain fell than was expected for an entire month, causing mass disruption and damage. I pay tribute and give thanks to the blue-light services, the local authority, the Environment Agency, and the community groups, volunteers and local people who responded. My constituents now need assurances that everything is being done to protect their homes, businesses and community spaces from future floods.
One month ago, I led a Westminster Hall debate on flooding in South Yorkshire, voicing the concerns of people from my area. I called for investment in flood defences to make our region more resilient to flooding, and for the Prime Minister to make good on his commitment to convene an emergency summit on flooding in the north of England—he made that promise during the general election to the Mayor of the Sheffield city region, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge his work on this issue.
Since November, Barnsley and its surrounding areas have been hit by two more storms, leading to more flood damage. Community groups are unable to meet owing to waterlogged and damaged venues. Indeed, one of the local football clubs, Worsbrough Bridge FC, still does not have a pitch to play on. Action is needed urgently if residents and business owners from my community are to feel safe and secure in the homes and businesses for which they have worked their entire lives.
The Government need to commit to giving short-term financial support to help those affected and to fund recovery efforts. Right now, flood victims are relying on the goodwill of their neighbours to get them through this flooding crisis. More than half a million pounds has been donated by members of the public, local authority groups and community organisations to the South Yorkshire Community Foundation. The fact that the Government will only match fund this is outrageous. They have undercut efforts to help communities, households and businesses to recover. This is despite the fact that the Mayors of Doncaster and the Sheffield city region have said that £3 million is needed.
I am proud to live in an area with so much community spirit. The generosity of my neighbours and friends, while not unsurprising, deserves recognition. This Friday, I am meeting the Low Valley flooding group, which comprises residents who have joined together to help each other and to look at what can be done to prevent future flooding. Flood victims need more funds now so that they can rebuild their lives, and the burden should not fall on the victims. In addition to short-term financial aid, we need sustained investment to protect homes and businesses from future extreme weather events.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
I wish to start by saying how disappointing it is again to see a great opportunity lost in this Opposition day debate. The Opposition have, basically and plainly, just failed to ask the right questions. We do not need an independent review to know what happened in the floods. Most MPs whose constituencies were flooded this time, and many times before, know exactly where all the water comes from in their constituencies. On top of that, we had four times the monthly rainfall in just 24 hours. The information is already there; all a review would do is waste more time and more money.
Andrew Percy
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The managed solution to these problems will come from not an independent review, but the implementation of flood catchment management plans, which were first launched in 2007. Many of them have still not come to proper fruition. Those plans will inform the six-year funding period, but no inquiry will deal with that. We need to get the flood catchment management plans and some of their solutions actually delivered.
Craig Whittaker
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall cover a number of those points later in my speech.
It is for those reasons that I will not be voting for the Opposition’s motion but, just to show balance, I must say that the Government amendment is also a great opportunity lost, and is of no comfort or consolation to the thousands of people who have had their properties flooded—in many cases, yet again.
First, I wish to mention the Government response. In 2015, when the whole of the north of England was hit by flooding, the Government were quick to announce a support package for each of those affected by floods, whether homes or businesses. Given the scale of the devastation, Cobra was called and a package was announced in the first few days. This time, as the initial Storm Ciara damage was limited mainly to just the Calder Valley, Cobra was not called, which I do not have an issue with, and no package of support was triggered. The next nine days were like pulling hens’ teeth. In trying to get a response from Government, and after speaking to virtually every Department in Whitehall, it was discovered that the package comes from four or five different Departments.
Craig Whittaker
I will not. I am sorry, but I have too much to say.
All Departments were sympathetic, but none was able to trigger the package without the other. I also discovered that there was a package, but that the flooding of 1,187 properties in the Calder Valley on its own does not qualify for support, because it does not hit the criteria. Will the Secretary of State agree to look at and amend the support package so that we can have an off-the-shelf package that is automatically triggered for any constituency that suffers the devastation of flooding? Under such an arrangement, no constituency would be left waiting for nine days ever again.
I want to make it very clear that we do have three fully funded hard flood defence projects in the Calder Valley—one is partially completed and two are waiting to start. We also have a series of works beyond those projects. Treesponsibility and Slow The Flow are two fabulous charities. One has planted thousands of trees and has plans to continue planting trees around the catchment, while dozens of volunteers work with Slow The Flow on the leaky dams in the moors above. Grips are being blocked as part of moorland restoration in partnership with Natural England and landowners. Yorkshire Water has trialled reducing reservoir levels during times of heavy rain, but it will take a change of legislation to mandate that to happen. Hopefully, that can happen through the Environment Bill, with the amendments that my neighbour, the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), has put forward.
We have set aside money to build holding ponds, but only four have been managed to be built. This is all good stuff, but we are just toying with it. If we are serious about mitigating the risks of flooding, we need to do much, much more of this type of work in the catchment.
I have a number of asks for the Secretary of State. First, can the Calder Valley be elevated to tier 1 status, like the City of London? That would ensure that an annual sum of money would be allocated for a wider catchment plan both to slow the flow of water coming off the moorland and to protect areas further downstream, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy).
If the Government are not prepared to raise the Calder Valley’s status to tier 1, will the Secretary of State consider a series of pilot schemes for catchment areas across the country? I am talking about six catchment types that all have very different needs. That would require a commitment to annual funding for wider catchment plans, which could initially be developed over a five-year period. These pilots could form a wider strategy for the rest of the country so that we could start to manage flooding much closer within the catchment than at present, rather than consistently reacting to flooding.
I also ask that the wider catchment plan is given to the local authority to manage, as that is where all the local knowledge is held. Farmers were telling me back in November that the moors were sodden and that we would be in real trouble if the rains continued.
My final point is on the Environment Agency. Nobody can deny that it has done a brilliant job on the ground during the floods and on preparing people in the lead-up to them. The response has been much, much better than we experienced in 2012 and 2015. The issue, however, is in the amount of time that flood defence schemes take to implement. The upper Calder Valley has just one main road in and out. The one road has been down to a single lane for three years, while the scheme in Mytholmroyd is still under construction. We have had three years of people sitting in traffic at peak times for over an hour to travel just a couple of miles. The Mytholmroyd scheme was still not complete for the floods last month and, to rub salt into the wounds, the schemes for Hebden Bridge and Brighouse have not even started after four years. The Environment Agency will say that the schemes have to be done in sequence but, according to local water engineers and experts, that need not be the case. My final ask is that the Secretary of State puts pressure on the Environment Agency to get those schemes finished before the threat of our next major flood.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Nearly a quarter or more of all those affected in the recent flooding were in one local authority area in Wales, in Rhondda Cynon Taf. I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) will catch your eye later to talk about the situation there. That meant that a very significant number of homes in my constituency were flooded: in Treorchy, Trehafod, Ystrad, Britannia, Blaenllechau, Ynyshir, and Penrhys.
In Pentre, a culvert overflowed from the top of the hill, and slurry came down full of coal dust, debris and a fair amount of sewage. It swept down through a whole part of Pentre. What was particularly upsetting was not only what those people had to suffer on the first occasion, but that, three days later, in Pleasant Street—ironically named—the flooding came all over again because the brash that had got stuck in the middle of the culvert was now further down, and water was coming out of a completely different place. So, when nobody else was being flooded in the country, the people in Pleasant Street were flooded all over again. That is particularly upsetting for so many people in my constituency because dozens and dozens of them—I met many of them—have no insurance. That is not because they are on a floodplain or for a complicated reasons about insurance, but because, in the run-up to Christmas, many families in my patch are on borderline finances. They are literally making decisions about whether to put food on the table or to buy a school uniform; consequently, the insurance is the first bill that goes. Those people have lost absolutely everything—literally everything. Most people in my patch own their own homes as well. It has been a double, triple, quadruple whammy. What has been upsetting for even more people is that some have also lost their job because business in Pontypridd has been dramatically affected, so they have lost their job and their home.
The damage to the infrastructure of Rhondda Cynon Taf is phenomenal. About a dozen bridges across the whole of RCT will have to be rebuilt completely. A couple of those are historic buildings, so we have to get permission from Cadw to take them down. That will have a dramatic cost. There are hundreds of culverts. In my patch, flooding is not normally caused by the river overflowing or bursting its banks; it happens because of water coming down off the mountain at great speed in areas where it was not expected, with new watercourses suddenly being created and culverts not working. A phenomenally complicated set of infrastructure decisions have to be looked at.
The council now reckons that its bill will be something in the region of £44 million, but its annual capital allocation is just £13.4 million. RCT could be completely wiped out unless there is significant additional funding to the Welsh Government from here. Rhondda Cynon Taf has given £500 to every household affected; the Welsh Government have given another £500, and more to those who are not insured. I hope that the crowdfunder that I set up, which has now reached £52,341, will be able to give £250 or perhaps more to every single household. I would love it if the Minister would stand up and say that he will ensure that the Government match the funds that have been raised. I represent one of the poorest constituencies in the land, and for that money to have been found locally is just phenomenal. If somebody watching this debate on television would like to give us £50,000, it would mean that we could give £500 to every household.
I want to celebrate the spirit the people of the Rhondda, which has been absolutely amazing. I remember standing in the middle of the slurry in Lewis Street in my wellington boots, and there were about 30 people there who had come from all over the Rhondda to give a hand in whatever way possible. Many were in completely inappropriate clothes, but they just wanted to do their bit. One old man was in his bed and could not move, and neighbours carried him—in his bed, which was in danger of floating away—to safety. There were Canolfan Pentre volunteers there every single day. Tesco and others have provided food because lots of these families have no money to pay for food right now. Fundraising events have been carried out by Morlais. Squares nightclub has come up with £3,063. Visit Treorchy has found another £3,000. The Manic Street Preachers have given £6,000, between my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd and I. Neil Kinnock has given £500. But there is so much that we still have to do to put things right. You can make a donation as well, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The clock will still be operating, but I am going to be a little bit more flexible with time during this maiden speech, since there is only one during this debate. Let us be considerate of Holly Mumby-Croft. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
It is good to hear the Government Benches so united in their support for Scunthorpe. It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I pay tribute to my predecessor, Nic Dakin, who represented Scunthorpe county between 2010 and 2019 with a great deal of dedication and a genuine desire to help our residents.
I am very glad to represent my home town as part of a varied and beautiful constituency, which includes not only Scunthorpe, but Messingham Bottesford, Yaddlethorpe, Kirton, Holme, East Butterwick, Redbourne, Scawby, Scawby Brook, Hibaldstow, Gainsthorpe, Cadney, Howsham, Cleatham, Manton and Greetwell. As a proud Scunthorpe lass, the granddaughter of a 30-year steelworking veteran, I am particularly proud to stand here today as the first MP for Scunthorpe county who was actually born in Scunthorpe Hospital.
Across the land and indeed the world, when people hear the word “Scunthorpe” they think of steel. We have had a very challenging time in Scunthorpe over the past months, and my thoughts are very much with our steelworkers today. But we are still living up to our heritage. We are still making steel, and we look forward to doing so for many years to come. Few who visit our industrial cathedral will ever forget the sight of red hot metal, and I was delighted to welcome the Business Secretary to Scunthorpe only a couple of weeks ago to feel the heat on his face, in our rod mill. We were very well looked after, and I was extremely proud to show him how hard we work in Scunthorpe. Unfortunately, when I suggested during the visit that I could go and watch the steel being tapped, as we had done as kids, I quickly discovered that health and safety has tightened up somewhat since the 1990s—a little extra training and a flame-proof suit is now required for that activity.
Scunthorpe emerged in the 19th century as an extraction point for ironstone and later as its own iron producer, eventually becoming our nation’s greatest steel hub. Our steel is known for its exceptional quality and durability. We have supported infrastructure projects throughout the nation’s history. Our works are truly powered not by coke, but by our steelworkers. They are strong, stoic people who have genuine pride in their work, and I know that the friendships forged there can last a lifetime. I am not saying all this purely because my granddad is watching at home but, because of him, my memories of our steelworks are of steel toe cap boots, a soot-covered donkey jacket and trips around the site on a train, and I am very excited to have been invited by the Appleby Frodingham Railway Preservation Society to relive some of those memories. I truly believe that Members of this House and people across the country will agree on the importance to our nation of keeping a truly integrated steelworks. Having home-produced, genuinely world-class steel not only serves various strategic interests for our nation; it is also integral to the Prime Minister’s mission to level up the north, and I thank the Government for the support that they have shown Scunthorpe over the past months.
Steel is our backbone, but it is by no means all there is to the Scunthorpe constituency. We are blessed with wonderful countryside, down-to-earth, generous and decent people, and a proud history of small businesses, many of which have expanded over generations to employ lots of people in our area. North Lincolnshire was described in a recent poll as the best place in the UK to bring up a family. As a mum and an aunty, I can attest to that. A few days after I was elected to this place, I was invited by Scunthorpe Cheerleading Academy to open a fantastic new cheerleading facility in Scunthorpe. I was lifted into the air to be a flyer in a pyramid, which is frankly not a sentence that I ever expected to say. My constituency has a vibrant selection of community groups —people who give their time freely. Volunteers truly make our area better, and I thank them for their work.
Now that we have got Brexit done, and having worked with the Government towards securing the future of our steelworks, I will work to see more funding for our schools. I will be fighting to widen the A15. It is a Roman road and, frankly, it is now time that it was widened. I will also be fighting to upgrade Scunthorpe Hospital, where I was born, and I thank the Health Secretary for agreeing to visit and to discuss the challenges we face. There will always be more to do, and I look forward to working with our council leader, Rob Waltham, on many future projects.
My thoughts today are very much with those affected by flooding. I am particularly aware of the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) as he seeks to help those in his constituency. I will be working with colleagues in a bid to secure a national flood resilience centre on a site in Scunthorpe. I thank colleagues on both sides of the House who have supported that project. It is an oven-ready scheme that would allow us to provide world-class training, planning and research to mitigate future flooding events.
I look forward to continuing to work with my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole, who has been a huge help and support to me in my early weeks in this place. He knows that I see him very much as a father figure.
Holly Mumby-Croft
Or, indeed, a grandfather figure—him being a generation older than I am. [Laughter.]
I am proud to represent a constituency that has quietly given so much to the nation over the years. If you came to this place by train, we probably made the tracks. If you came in a car, we probably made the wire in the tyres. And it is thanks to Russell Ductile Castings that we are dry, as it is a foundry in my constituency that made the tiles on this roof. For many years, the people of Scunthorpe and its surrounding areas have played a quiet but crucial role in the success of this country, and I look forward to fighting for Scunthorpe to be levelled up.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft). Many of us in this House deeply miss Nic Dakin, but it was a real pleasure to hear her story about how she was forged in Scunthorpe. Like her, and like all of us in this House, we hope that Scunthorpe will continue to make steel for many years and generations to come.
I want to speak about Kirkstall and Burley in my constituency, which were devastated by floods on Boxing day in 2015. In the aftermath of those floods, we were promised by the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), the Environment Secretary at the time, that Yorkshire would soon have
“one of the most resilient flood defence programmes in the country”,
and that Leeds would be given
“the right level of protection”
from floods. Well, more than four years after those words were uttered, we still do not have those things and still desperately need them. Phase 2 of the flood alleviation scheme for Leeds was cancelled in 2011, and we are still fighting to get it back. Although phase 1 has happened and protects Leeds city centre, Kirkstall and Burley are still as unprotected as they were on Boxing day 2015. We had a near miss with Storm Ciara and luckily avoided the floods that we experienced in 2015, but if the water in the River Aire had risen by just a few centimetres more, we would have been devastated in exactly the same way, because we still do not have the flood defences that we were promised and that we need. We remain £23 million short of the funding that we need in Leeds to build the second phase of the flood alleviation scheme. Some work is happening, and we welcome that. Only last week I visited Harden Moor in Bradford, where trees are being planted and leaky dams are being put in, but not, frankly, at the level needed to provide the protections that we need.
People in my constituency, and particularly businesses in my constituency, like those that other hon. Members have mentioned, are in fear every time there is a flood warning, and every time they see the river and the canal near to where we live rising, because they know that we are just as vulnerable as we were back then. Not only are we as vulnerable to the flooding but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, many people and businesses now do not have flood insurance, although not always for the same reasons that he mentioned. In this case, it is because that flood insurance is simply unaffordable, as now we have gone through floods the insurers will not insure at the same rates as they did previously. Yesterday evening, I spoke to a business owner and asked him what happened to his flood insurance after the floods of 2015, and he said that it almost trebled overnight. Many businesses in my community no longer have flood insurance because it would make their businesses unviable.
Neil Parish
Flood Re helps with residential property but not with small businesses. Somebody who is, say, running a guest house, and is very much classed as a business, cannot get that guarantee of assurance. We need to re-look at how Flood Re works. It works well for residential property but not for small businesses.
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He and I, and the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) have today written to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make exactly these points. Flood Re, although incredibly welcome, is of no use to small business owners who are particularly badly affected in my constituency. I know that the Government are reviewing the Flood Re scheme, but this is a matter of urgency now. Businesses did return to Kirkstall and Burley after the floods in 2015, but they might not return quite so quickly next time, because the flood premiums will go up again—and also, frankly, because they believed the promises in 2016 that the flood defences would be built. They have not been built, and I think that would change some of the business decisions. So, urgently, let us get the flood defences, but let us also ensure that businesses can get insurance.
Climate change is only going to make these matters worse and more pressing. We know that water levels are rising. We know that ice caps are melting. We know that our weather is becoming more unpredictable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) pointed out. So in future we will need to be better protected and better prepared for floods. That is all that people in Leeds are asking for. We are asking to be better protected and better prepared, because it is a case of when and not if we get flooding in Leeds again. We have done everything we can in Leeds to ensure that we get the flood defences we need. We now look to the Government to come up with that £23 million to ensure that we do level up the flood defence spending so that the people of Kirkstall and Burley get the flood defences we need. That can only happen if the Government deliver on their promises.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
As I am sure that all Members of this House would agree, what a fantastic maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft)! It is clear that she will be an absolute champion for her steel industry.
I start by joining colleagues in praising the work of our emergency services and flood responses around the country. The constituency of Runnymede and Weybridge has the Thames on our border. We have several different rivers going through the constituency that are liable to flooding. Given the limited time, I will not meander like the Thames, but focus on what is, in some ways, a love letter to the River Thames scheme that urgently needs to be built.
Much of our land is on a floodplain. Building on floodplains is not new. Many areas of this country are on reclaimed land. Indeed, Chertsey in my constituency, the site of a Benedictine abbey, was originally known as Chertsey Island. Clearly, we need to prevent further development on unprotected floodplains, but that is not enough. We also need to protect our developments that are already there—our homes, our businesses and our land. Many of my constituents are persecuted by perennial flood warnings and alerts. Watching your garden gradually flood, praying that it does not reach your house, is not a way to spend Christmas, but that is the experience that many of my constituents had last year.
Flooding is increasingly a natural threat to our communities, and the protections that we need cannot be underestimated. The River Thames scheme—a scheme of flood defences for my constituency and others—promises to protect our homes and businesses. I do not know how much steel the River Thames scheme may need, but I do hope that it comes from Scunthorpe. The tragedy of the 2014 flooding in Runnymede and Weybridge leaves us in no doubt of the urgent need for the River Thames scheme. I look forward to working on this with the Environment Agency, DEFRA and other key stake- holders, including Surrey County Council, which has done much of the heavy lifting in driving this project forwards.
But it will still take many years to get the River Thames scheme built, so we need to turn our attention to flood mitigation. Local community flood groups are excellent, and they are a crucial part of building resilience, as is the Flood Re scheme. Flood Re has made it easier for domestic customers to claim insurance, but there are also large numbers of small businesses affected in many of our constituencies, as we have heard from hon. Members across the House. Flooding of these businesses means that they find it very difficult to recover, especially the smaller ones in small economies. We need to consider how we can mitigate the risks and damages to businesses when flooding occurs.
Prevention is better than cure. It is clear that the Government are leading the way with the Environment Bill and our commitments on the environment—meeting net zero by 2050, and introducing long-term, legally binding targets on biodiversity, air quality, water, and resource and waste efficiency—but we still need to get our defences built.
The motion calls for a review. Rather than another review and a pointless waste of money, we need action and investment in flood defence infrastructure. I welcome the Government’s pledge to invest in flood defence schemes across the country. The River Thames scheme will provide not only flood defences but a community asset of natural parks and paths that we can treasure and use to turn disadvantage into opportunity.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We have been here so many times before; Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you have spoken on the Floor of the House about the impact of flooding. That is why this motion is so important—we must turn focus into action and ensure that we address the real issues. I know that my constituents who yet again were flooded are fed up of hearing promises; they need resilience put in place. We also need to agree this motion because the climate is changing. We are getting wetter winters and, as a result, river levels are getting higher and more frequent flooding is occurring.
We know that systems are not working in the way that they should. We need more connectivity in the whole system, with a whole catchment approach, to manage the way that the water works, as opposed to just looking at this scheme by scheme. We need to ensure that the money spent and offered is working most effectively. It is not, which is why it is important that we review those processes to ensure that they work effectively for the future.
We have heard so many times how upper catchment management is needed to slow the flow and to ensure that we do planting, manage farmland differently, look at a ban on grouse shooting and manage peatland, yet the focus is always downstream. I know from the research carried out by the University of York that we could take away 20% of the water coming downstream if we managed uplands differently, which would mean that my city would not flood—yet the resources go into barriers getting higher and higher, as opposed to solving the issue upstream. That is why the Environment Agency is right to call for resources to be given to areas to manage the whole catchment efficiently and effectively. We must look at that.
I want to remind the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), that as part of the national flood resilience review, the discussion put a focus on the comprehensive spending review, which is on its way, to ensure that proper investment goes into upper catchment management. I hope that she makes those representations, and I will certainly make further representations to her about that.
My city is grateful that the Foss barrier worked. It was a £17 million investment, and the Minister’s predecessor gave us the additional spending to ensure that we brought it up to speed. It saved a lot of my city, but yet again properties and businesses along the River Ouse flooded, which has caused much anxiety in my community. There is a personal impact from not only seeing the flooding but anticipating it.
Time and again, we have seen a failure to look at community resilience planning and property-level resilience. The procurement mechanisms need to be reviewed. We have had surveys carried out and then more surveys carried out because the last lot of surveys were inefficient. Four years later, we still have not had the upgrades that we need. The companies providing those surveys are now saying, “You have to buy our resilience measures,” and jacking up their prices. A kitemarked door might cost about £2,000, but those companies are saying, “You’ve got to buy ours, which is £5,000,” and it is not kitemarked, so there has to be a special testing mechanism. That is nonsensical. We need to ensure that we have proper procurement. I want to put a question out there: is the Environment Agency the right agency to deal with property-level resilience? This is about building, and issues around building and planning might belong in a different agency, to make the process more effective. I would like the Minister to look into that issue, to see whether these schemes can work faster and more efficiently.
Finally, we need to ensure that the money works together. We have money coming from the Bellwin scheme, resilience grants, insurance, the Environment Agency and local authorities, yet the money does not pull together to create community-level resilience, in place of individual property resilience. We need to ensure that that works.
It could have been a lot worse in York. I want to thank Environment Agency staff for their day-to-day diligence and keeping me up to date; the local authority staff who work day and night to ensure that we are safe; and the BBC, who were fantastic at communicating what was happening.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
There is a slight irony in the politicisation at the beginning of the debate, because many of us in west Kent will remember the floods in 2000, after which the then Labour Government did absolutely nothing about the bursting of the River Medway and the flooding of many areas of Tonbridge and west Kent. My first experience of flooding was as a community representative—not yet an MP, but the Conservative candidate in Tonbridge and Malling—in 2013. That Christmas was ruined for many when the Medway again burst its banks. Since then, I have been able to report some pretty good news, because we have had some serious investment. We have had investment in the Leigh flood storage area and work done by the EA upstream in Penshurst. There is more to do, but we have seen good action and a lot of work to protect our towns and villages.
I remind Opposition Members that the Conservative party has done more to protect residents from flooding than any other party. I have spoken to those affected by flooding, and they care about us ensuring that it does not happen again, not point scoring. I hope we will stick to planning, which is exactly what this Government are doing. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House remember the River Medway (Flood Relief) Act 1976.
Tom Tugendhat
It is regular reading for the grandfather of Goole. The forthcoming proposed amendment to the Act may seem like a small one, to increase the height of the Leigh flood storage area, but it will protect many lives. The Leigh flood storage area is a vital piece of infrastructure on the River Medway, without which the town of Tonbridge would be constantly vulnerable. I urge those who are not familiar with it to visit, particularly now that the A21 is fixed. It helps to store water and protect our town, and we have seen it used many times in not only the past few weeks but the past few years, protecting thousands of homes.
The enlargement project comes with unqualified local support. In addition to Government funding, it is supported by Kent County Council. I pay tribute to the work that the county council has done and the council leader, Roger Gough, for his efforts. Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, led well by Nicolas Heslop, has done extremely impressive work as well.
Local businesses have also chipped in and done their bit. As a Conservative Administration, we believe that people should contribute to their own protection, and that is exactly what many of these businesses are doing. One of the great successes of the Government intervention after the 2013 Christmas floods was the establishment of the Medway Flood Partnership, bringing together all the relevant organisations to develop a plan for flood relief on the Medway catchment area.
Tom Tugendhat
I want to briefly pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who was then the floods Minister, but I now give way with great pleasure.
Neil Parish
Does my hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to private sector investment in flood defences, the Treasury needs to be a bit more generous and give a bit more tax relief to ensure that we get more private money to help protect our properties and businesses?
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend is right. I would like to see VAT relief on private flood protection, which many people are forced to buy for their own homes. I hope the Chancellor will consider that for the coming Budget, but I suspect we may have missed that one.
I want to thank a few people who have made a huge difference. In our community, flood wardens have had a huge impact by not only ensuring that people are safe when a flood occurs but helping to clear culverts and report blocked drains, so that floods do not accumulate, and particularly surface water flooding. Carl Lewis in Tonbridge has led the way, and a small thank you should go to him. Other people around the area have agreed to allow private land to be used.
When I was driving from home into Tonbridge the other day, large areas of west Kent were covered by the Medway. However, in Tonbridge we have had issues this winter caused by management companies and house builders failing to look after residents. This is not a question about building on floodplains; these are buildings that are deliberately and expertly built on floodplains, with floodable garages underneath. They are specifically designed for the purpose, but those living in Riverbank House in Tonbridge were let down badly by Pembroke Property Management. Only now has the floodwater been pumped out of their car park following the flooding that occurred before Christmas. Pembroke had no plan to deal with the flooding and failed to ensure that there were working pumps in the car park, so cars remained submerged for weeks. I pay particular tribute to some of the local councillors, including Matthew Boughton, who made a huge noise in making sure that constituents and residents were properly represented.
In the absence of action from property management companies, we must look at ways to ensure that residents are protected and that they are not charged for services that should already be provided—none more so than those let down by Redrow at Waterside Reach. This building is only four years old and, as the name suggests, it was specifically built next to the river. So there is more that this Government can do and I look forward very much to the Government taking action and making sure that towns such as Tonbridge—deliberately built, by the Vikings, on the river—are able to continue.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Colleagues will be aware of the devastating impact that the recent storms have had on communities in my constituency. In Pontypridd and right across Rhondda Cynon Taf, the level of rainfall was unprecedented, and the River Taf’s levels rose by over 1 metre above all previous records. Houses and businesses have been absolutely devastated, and my community and local authority simply could not have prepared for the amount of rainfall that Storm Dennis brought us.
As a new Member of this House, I never imagined that my first few months as an elected representative would be spent visiting local businesses and residents who have seen their livelihoods and their lives shattered. The flooding that communities such as mine and others across the country have experienced is surely a sign that the climate crisis has gone far enough. I pay tribute to the fantastic way in which our community groups throughout my constituency and all over Rhondda Cynon Taf have come together to support one another, but we really should not be facing such unprecedented and unexpected natural disasters in the first place.
I am proud that the Welsh Labour Government have made £10 million available to households impacted by flooding, and the First Minister has been so quick to respond not just by visiting those impacted in my constituency, but by setting up emergency relief schemes. Yet the cost of the flooding damage in Wales could reach at least £180 million and that figure is also predicted to climb. We are simply not receiving the financial support from the UK Government to cover these unexpected costs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, it is expected that over a quarter of the total number of flooded homes in the UK are in our local authority area of Rhondda Cynon Taf. The community response has been fantastic, but I would not expect anything less. A crowdfunder that I set up only two weeks ago has managed to raise over £36,000, in addition to the crowdfunder set up by my hon. Friend. Donations have come in from all over the world, showing that this is clearly an issue close to everybody’s hearts—although perhaps not our Prime Minister’s.
Although the flooding and the rainfall have caused immense and in places irreparable damage, the consequences of the flooding are far broader, wider and long-lasting than simply cosmetic damage. There are former coalmining sites across south Wales that are now at huge risk of landslides. Indeed, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, landslides began soon after the rainfall. Yet it is clear that the UK Government do not understand their responsibilities when it comes to devolution, and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has claimed that this is an issue for the devolved Welsh Government. The Welsh Labour Government have committed to the thorough flooding response, but the management of all former coal sites, in the wake of this flash flooding, needs urgent attention. I have been extremely concerned to see that there is some confusion from this UK Government over where their responsibilities to former coalmining sites lie, and I would like this cleared up urgently.
I sincerely hope that this UK Government are committed to working alongside colleagues in the Welsh Government to find a way forward beyond the flooding devastation. Longer term, I would like to see a new consideration of the clearly outdated Barnett consequential funding formula. I am sure that colleagues on both sides of the House would agree that we should not have to wait for natural disasters such as flash flooding to strike before properly considering methods of funding devolved Administrations such as Wales.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for mentioning Tenbury Wells, which was in my constituency in 2007 when it flooded three times. The fact that somebody lost their life there is a proper tragedy, and when one talks about flooding, there is only one thing worse, and that is efforts to politicise it.
In just two days, we had a whole month’s worth of rain, on 15 and 16 February, which has caused about £10 million of damage in my constituency. Some 110 properties have been flooded, and 389 people were evacuated or led to safety. The fire brigade has done a phenomenal job. It also rescued 30 dogs, 12 cats, 55 sheep, a pony, a parrot and a snake, believe it or not. The village of Hampton Bishop in my constituency was very badly affected. We saw the Lugg and the Wye rise to their highest levels since recording began 200 years ago, so people who think that this was a normal flood are wrong. We had 700 tonnes of water per second going past the bridge on the Wye in Hereford. The Environment Agency pumped water out of Hampton Bishop, but the problem is of the one-in-100 year floods meeting one-in-25-year defences, and we need to do considerably better.
Daniel Kawczynski
My hon. Friend is outlining the devastation that Herefordshire suffered during the recent floods. We of course experienced similar problems in Shropshire, but the leader of my council is telling me that the Bellwin scheme is not proving sufficient to meet all the demands that the council has in clearing up the mess. Could he say something about that?
Bill Wiggin
My council has had the same problem. I would ask the Government to think very carefully about training local authorities in how to manage the Bellwin scheme. Certainly, councillors in Herefordshire have been panicking because they do not necessarily understand how the scheme works, they do not know how much they can spend, and they do not know who to turn to. I think the Department that is managing this scheme needs to reach out to the affected local authorities so that at least the officers there know what they are talking about and can advise elected councillors properly.
Craig Whittaker
Calderdale is the second smallest local authority in the country, and we have to spend about £750,000 before we get £50,000 back from Bellwin. Does he agree with me that the scheme needs reviewing and bringing into the modern age?
Bill Wiggin
I do agree.
In my constituency, we have had the Holme Lacy Causeway inundated. We knew it would flood: it flooded last October, and it has flooded again. Nothing was done to protect that stretch of road. The worst case is the B4224, which is the main road through Fownhope. The damage there is so severe that the wall supporting the road has collapsed into the garden of my own parliamentary assistant, so not only could I not find out what was going on, but she could not get to work. She is about to get married and could really do without this, but worst of all, the people of Fownhope and the businesses there are not able to get the passing trade. Again, the council has been worrying about whether it is going to get the money, instead of getting on with repairing this road. However, even if it moves as quickly as possible, it will still take a long time.
I do think that local authorities need considerable training in understanding the Bellwin scheme, and if it is not fit for purpose, we need to make sure that it is. When we get a situation such as the one I have described, vehicles have to be sent round other roads, which damages them and means that they are not necessarily in a fit state at the end of such a diversion. The potholes are already bad; everybody has the same problem with them. We therefore need to get a much better understanding of the problems local authorities go through when dealing with flooding, just as the Government did with Flood Re, when they understood some of the challenges people faced in getting home insurance. Obviously I agree with what I heard earlier about how that needs to be extended to local businesses, because in my constituency businesses are damaged by floods again and again, and we need a more robust system for assisting and helping those people.
One cannot simply put into words the praise required for the fire brigade, the Army and the Environment Agency when such floods take place, and indeed, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, for the way that our constituents rise to the challenge. The people of my constituency, and indeed all of Herefordshire and I suspect the whole country, have been fantastic in the way they have supported one another; they have risen to the challenge of understanding what a community is and have united in trying to deal with this horrendous problem of flooding. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) has been having trouble with Toronto Close, which was under water; he has asked me to mention that because, as a Minister, he is not able to speak himself. There, once again, residents were left to deal with flood defences themselves. It is tough enough when we know that we are going to flood, but not getting the support and help that we need from the Environment Agency makes it even worse.
Every year—every summer—I go around my constituency with the Environment Agency to make sure that all the preparation we can possibly do is done to ensure the flooding alleviation systems work. It is worth doing; those who do not do it should do so, because that preparation makes a world of difference. We saw it with the Somerset levels, when the Environment Agency thought it was all right to let trees grow in the rivers, and then all that happened was that the wildlife and the species it was hoping to protect simply drowned when the rivers backed up, because branches got caught in the overhanging trees.
We really do need to manage our waterways properly. We need to ensure that the people who understand that are listened to, and we need to ensure that the communities that suffer again and again and again are protected. That is why I welcome some of the things the Government have done. I think that local authorities could do more, and they need the help and training to make sure that that happens.
My heart goes out to anybody who has been flooded. I lost my car in 2007. I do not think people can understand until they have been through it the smell, the filth and the vile nature of a flood, and I would wish it on no one.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
On Boxing day 2015, Riverside Drive and Beaver Chase in Prestolee and Stoneclough in my constituency suffered severe flooding from the rising waters of the River Irwell during unprecedented high rainfall. Some 57 properties were affected and residents were forced to flee their homes. Properties were severely damaged and vehicles written off. The Environment Agency has worked very hard to come up with a proposal for the flood defences. It is now four years since those major floods and the proposed flood defences have still not been installed. The residents believe the Government are not prioritising them because they are prioritising schemes with larger numbers of properties, so Prestolee keeps getting pushed back further.
Following meetings with local residents and the Environment Agency, I wrote a letter to the Minister who is in her place today on 4 February this year, urging her to provide the funding needed to complete the defence work in my constituency. I have yet to receive a response.
On Sunday 9 February, Riverside Drive was flooded again, this time affecting 22 properties. Right now the residents’ wrecked belongings are piled up in their gardens. Some residents are living in the upstairs of their homes as the downstairs is uninhabitable, and others are forced to stay in hotels. Many residents feel trapped; they are unable to remortgage or sell their homes.
The damage caused to the river bank is such that if the river levels rise again, the estate will be flooded again, and there have been several flood alerts since the flood in 2015. Every time there is rainfall the residents get very anxious and worried about what may happen. It is causing a lot of them mental distress.
Both the residents and the Environment Agency are keen to get construction of the flood defences under way as soon as possible, and there are no technical difficulties in doing that. However, until the funding is made available no work can be commenced, and even if the funding was granted today, the first set of work would not be able to start until spring 2021. We do not know how many more rainfalls there may be, and obviously people are incredibly distressed about this.
It is difficult to install temporary defences due to the fact that there is a lack of space. The ideal solution is to build flood walls on both sides of the river, as some properties on the right bank also flooded in 2015. However, a flood wall on the left bank adjacent to Riverside Drive is far more urgent. The Environment Agency informed me that it would cost in the region of £4 million for walls on both banks of the river or £3 million for the left bank alone.
In just one week residents have collected 2,876 signatures on a public petition, and I hold those signatures and the petition in my hand now. I will be presenting the petition this afternoon at the end of proceedings. The petition urges the Government to fully fund our defences. I therefore ask the Minister to commit to the money that is required to build them in my constituency.
We have all heard about the fact that—and everyone recognises this—with climate change we are going to have more and more and more rain; it is not going to lessen. There is going to be more and more flooding and devastation. More and more people and properties are going to be affected. So why do the Government not take the bull by the horns? All the areas in the United Kingdom that have been affected by the floods and are going to be repeatedly affected by floods must be provided with the money they need now, so as to prevent future damage. It makes no sense not to do that. It would help to regenerate our economy if these contracts were provided and it would rebuild areas, so in every aspect this is a win-win-win. I really do not want to see the sadness and the devastation on my constituents’ faces again, so I urge the Minister to grant us the funding that we need to construct the walls on the two banks.
Finally, I want to pay tribute to the residents of Prestolee, especially Karen Smith, who helped organise the petition, to the Environment Agency, which has helped and done a great amount of work, and to all the emergency services. So again, at the risk of sounding like a broken tape recorder, I say: please can we have £5 million for our flood defences?
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
My constituency of Bassetlaw has suffered from the effects of flooding. The historic town of Worksop was flooded in 2007, and as a result several residents and businesses struggled to get insurance afterwards. Unfortunately, in November 2019 the town was flooded once more, resulting in the evacuation of many people from their homes. The fire and rescue service had to use boats in the town centre to rescue people, and I would like to thank it, along with the other emergency services, agencies and volunteers, for their hard work in dealing with this emergency. Worksop library was also flooded, and we have had to relocate the service elsewhere until the summer, when it will be fully open again.
Worksop town centre has struggled in recent years, and we are desperate for a boost to help regenerate our town. However, it would be pointless to make significant investment in our town centre without making sure Worksop will not flood again as it did in November. Some have argued that steps could have been taken to mitigate the problems caused by the November flood, such as opening the sluice gate; however, what is really needed is a joined-up and long-term approach, including proper flood defences.
Worksop was not the only place in Bassetlaw affected by flooding. Walkeringham Primary School was flooded, and the staff and pupils have had to take refuge in nearby Beckingham until the school is refurbished and fully operational once more. Members of the community in Shireoaks were out with sandbags, trying to protect their village. Residents in Retford also suffered from flooding, and I met with constituents on Darrel Road to discuss their concerns. When somebody invites us into their home and shows us the devastation and the water marks from the flooding, it really shows us what a dreadful experience people have been through and are still going through.
I welcome the Government’s announcement of £2.6 billion for flood defences, with another £4 billion to come. I would ask that Bassetlaw receives its fair share of this funding and that schemes such as the one at Retford beck or the dredging of the River Ryton can be looked at with urgency.
With Storm Dennis we did not see a repeat of November’s floods, thankfully. While other areas of Nottinghamshire experienced terrible flooding, we came through relatively unscathed; this time we got lucky. With this Government’s ambitious plans, I am sure luck will no longer come into it.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
There is no doubt that we are in the midst of a climate emergency, and in the past few months, flooding has swept through communities right around our country. It is becoming a tragic fact of life that more and more families and businesses are now experiencing the consequences of flooding.
In South Yorkshire, our residents know this reality all too well, as they saw their homes and businesses destroyed by the devastating floods of last November. More than 1,000 homes were affected and many families are still living in temporary accommodation. While the recovery effort is well under way, there is still an urgent need for ongoing support in many communities in South Yorkshire and around the country, and widespread flooding shows the stark reality facing us.
Unless we change our ways, the destruction caused by flooding and extreme weather will become the new normal. We cannot afford for that to happen. In South Yorkshire, we are developing strategies that will help to safeguard our environment. We are working to ensure that these devastating events are not repeated and that South Yorkshire’s resilience to flooding is strengthened. However, our efforts must be backed up by Government action. There are three steps that I would like the Government to take so that we can better protect residents and our communities in South Yorkshire.
First, there is an urgent need to invest in flood prevention and mitigation. Last week, I wrote to the Secretary of State to submit South Yorkshire’s flood priority programme. It is a bid for £271 million to substantially reduce flood risk right across South Yorkshire. Approving that in full would give 19 schemes the resources they need to plug funding gaps. It would provide additional resilience to our defences, and cover refurbishment and maintenance costs. I also propose an investment of £4 million in natural flood management, which would introduce upstream solutions that can slow the flow of water and reduce the risk to downstream areas. Let us be clear that this is the scale of ambition, funding and commitment that we need from the Government. They, of course, have a golden opportunity to deliver by funding our submission in full at next week’s Budget. My constituents have paid the price of flooding physically, financially and psychologically. The programme is not only credible, costed and comprehensive, but the right thing to do.
Secondly, the Government need to look again at the Green Book. They need to urgently look at the specific criteria used to make funding decisions about flood defences. The current criteria prioritise too much the value of the properties affected which, given the areas affected in recent floods in South Yorkshire, will make it much harder for them to compete for funding.
Thirdly, we must ensure that those who are affected by the risk of flooding have access to flood protection insurance. The Flood Re scheme has made a difference, but there is still work to do. We have heard Government Members talk about small businesses, but research published last week highlighted the gaps in Flood Re. It found that 70,000 homes are at risk of being left uninsurable in the future. Those affected by flooding—in South Yorkshire and right around the country—as a result of the most recent storms need to have the peace of mind that they will be able to secure insurance and that the insurance that they can secure is affordable.
Craig Whittaker
One thing that the insurance industry tells us, particularly in relation to business, is that all businesses can get insurance for flooding. The problem, of course—I wonder if the hon. Gentleman has come across the same thing—is that the premiums are so high and the excesses are phenomenal, too. I found a 35-seat café with a £65,000 excess to pay.
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. He raises a very valuable point, with which I completely agree. I am particularly pleased that he intervened at that point, because it very neatly takes me on to the final point that I was hoping to make. In November last year, when I spoke to the Prime Minister about the flooding situation in South Yorkshire, he agreed that there would be real merit in a South Yorkshire summit on flooding. We now think it will include the whole of Yorkshire. Last week, when I raised it with the Secretary of State, he said that the flooding summit would take place within the next two months. I am grateful for that update, but it would be incredibly helpful if the Government and the Secretary of State could—perhaps the Minister could do so when she comes to close the debate—confirm when the flooding summit will take place in Yorkshire. That is important because it will bring together all the relevant parties to discuss the resilience that we do and do not have, and to consider what needs to be done in the short, medium and longer term to reduce the risk of further flooding right across Yorkshire. Protecting families and businesses in South Yorkshire, and not subjecting them to further harm from floods, is a priority that I believe the whole House shares. A summit would allow us to achieve that together and ensure that collectively we can work together so that those concerns are addressed. That is the least our constituents deserve.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for whom I have the utmost respect. He speaks very clearly and succinctly, and with passion about this very important issue. First, I thank and congratulate the Opposition on bringing forward this debate about such an important matter. It is important that we talk about these issues across the House. I put on record my thanks to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its Ministers for their help and support through difficult times in recent weeks and months, as my constituency has been hit significantly by floods.
I would also like to echo comments by other hon. Members and thank the Environment Agency, which has delivered fantastic support on the ground. Specifically, I would like to mention a couple of folk in my area, Keith Ashcroft and Stewart Mounsey, who have been fantastic in their leadership of their teams. I thank the emergency services and councils for their fantastic work in these difficult times. Last, but by no means least, I would like to thank the volunteer groups who work so hard in these areas in difficult times. Volunteers work hand in hand with the emergency services and the Environment Agency to deliver fantastic support, so I put on record my thanks to volunteers across the UK and in Cumbria, in areas such as Appleby, Glenridding, Keswick and Cockermouth.
We have talked today about the impact of flooding across the UK, which is not insignificant. Many people have felt significant effects. Cumbria has been hit hard, as has Penrith and The Border, not least in 2015 but also in recent weeks in areas such as Appleby, Shap, Crosby, Rickerby, Warwick Bridge and Glenridding.
Neil Parish
I welcome my hon. Friend to Parliament and, with his veterinary experience, to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. This morning, we launched a cross-party inquiry into flooding across the whole country to try to ensure we build on our previous flood inquiries and deliver a better system in the future.
Dr Hudson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was delighted to be appointed to the Committee and it is very welcome that it is going ahead with that inquiry. It is important that we work across parties on these issues to deliver the best for the whole country.
Members have talked about the impact of flooding across the country on individual communities, not least the financial implications. Members also touched on indirect consequences, and one issue that I would particularly like to mention is the mental health of our constituents. These episodes are traumatic. There is also anxiety and stress for constituents who are waiting nervously, wondering whether it is going to happen to them. We underestimate the mental health implications of flooding for young people, as well as for old people. Kids have their schools closed and they then worry about their mums and dads, who are worried about whether their homes will be flooded. We can work together on a cross-party basis to deliver help on mental health.
Many Members have touched on how the funding system may need to be reviewed and I welcome those comments. We need to consider how flood schemes are funded, their criteria and what communities will be protected. I would like to bang the drum for volunteer groups. Many do not have a funding source. Some are charities and they have to apply for funding. I would like the Government to look at whether funding sources are applicable to volunteer groups, so that they can apply for and receive funding. I have seen what volunteer groups do on the ground and they need to be funded. They need not just short-term grants, but grants for up to three years to give them the continuity of support that they need. That is really important.
Members on both sides of the House have talked about insurance schemes. I welcome the review of the Flood Re scheme. The scheme is welcome, but I reiterate points that have been made about making small businesses eligible for it. That would be an important step forward. We must also look at the eligibility criteria in relation to how recently homes have been built.
Finally, I would like to talk a little bit about uptake and flood resilience at an individual household level, and what measures the Government can take to encourage people to make their properties more resilient. They could not only encourage, but perhaps incentivise and even enforce, landlords to introduce flood protection schemes in their premises, especially where those landlords do not occupy the buildings and it is tenants who are vulnerable. If not every premises in a bank of houses is protected, the water will get in, and I would like people to think about that.
I again congratulate the Opposition on bringing forward the debate. Obviously there is an element of politics to it, but I have been reassured this afternoon that there is a lot of cross-party consensus about these important issues. It is important that we try to work together on that basis to deliver the best for the people of the United Kingdom.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson).
As the Minister might be aware, the Humber is the region with the second largest area of floodplain in the UK, and Hull tops the list of local authorities with the largest number of homes classified as at high risk of flooding, at nearly 20,000 properties. We were very lucky this time, but back in 2007 we were not so lucky. The floods at that time devastated our city, causing over £40 million of damage.
The city council responded by working with Yorkshire Water to develop plans to retain as much water as possible before it runs down into the city. Recently, the area became the first to agree officially binding rules regarding sustainable drainage requirements. It is the first joint initiative of its kind in the UK, where an area has looked at solving the problem itself. The city council is also involved in tree planting and is looking at other natural ways to absorb as much water as possible. However, that will not solve all the problems.
I pay tribute to the previous MP for Scunthorpe, Nic Dakin, and the work that he did across the House to push the Government to support an initiative from the University of Hull to build a state-of-the-art national flood resilience centre at the Scunthorpe site. The plan has received cross-party support from the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), among many others. The previous Secretary of State said that she would engage with people bringing forward a Bill and look at it seriously. The current Secretary of State said that he would be happy to meet the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole and others to discuss it. When the Minister sums up, I would like to hear how advanced the discussions are or when they will take place. Will she also give an update on the Government’s consideration of the University of Hull’s proposal to build a flood resilience centre, which would benefit everybody across the Humber?
The main point on which I want to focus the Minister’s mind today is the Lagoon Hull project, which again would benefit the whole of the Humber. I raised it on 24 February with the Secretary of State, and he said he would be happy to meet the promoters of the scheme. I would like to press the Minister to find a date for that and to tell her a little more about the project.
Hull is at risk of flooding not only due to water coming down, but from higher tides. The tidal barrier was very effective in 2013, after a tidal surge, but the water was within one inch of coming over the top. Some manufacturers were flooded because they were not protected.
The plans for Lagoon Hull are very ambitious. It is a £1.5-billion infrastructure scheme that would protect the city and region right into the 22nd century. It is a once-in-a-generation chance to transform the future of the area. The proposal is to create a lagoon by constructing a four-lane road that takes the A63 along a six-mile route into the estuary, from the docks in the east of the city to Hessle in the west. That would immediately benefit the whole of the front of the city of Hull by protecting it, while diverting traffic away from the city and easing all the problems of congestion. We are looking at the Government’s proposals for a free port in Hull, which we hope would generate more business for Hull port. If that happens, we will have to deal with the congestion problem, and this is one of the answers.
The lagoon project would provide more than 14,000 new jobs, new waterfront living and leisure opportunities, port expansion, and direct access for shipping to new deep-water quays. It could add £1 billion a year to the region’s economy through improved productivity. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to turn Hull in a magnet city and the envy of the rest of the UK. I urge the Minister to look into the proposals in detail, meet the people behind the project, and talk to Members of Parliament from across the Humber about how this could benefit the whole area and protect our city against flooding not just now, but as we go forward into the future.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Like just about every Member who has spoken, I am standing up on behalf of the 110 homes in my constituency that have been flooded, the 55 business that have been affected and the 200 homes that have been evacuated over the past two or three weeks as the storms have passed through. It is unbelievably unpleasant to suddenly find one’s home being flooded. It was particularly unfortunate for a couple who moved into a new house on the first Saturday of the storms, only to find themselves flooded by the Sunday.
Before I get to the meat of my speech, I want to speak up for the people who put themselves at risk when they come out to help us and keep us safe. The Environment Agency is made up of an extraordinary bunch of people who work incredibly hard, including in my constituency, and do so with efficiency and kindness for the local population who are seeing their homes flooded. They go around with the most extraordinary gentle efficiency, making people feel both relaxed and helped at the same time.
The Severn Area Rescue Association is a team of volunteers who cover the whole of the River Severn area. They go out in appalling conditions, risking their lives to keep all of us safe. I have an enormous amount of respect for SARA. Of course, we also have all those people who are professionally involved—the police, the Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service, and of course the local council—all of whom look after us very well.
I also say a big thank you to the Ministers who have been involved. I know that there has been a lot of criticism over the past few weeks, including that the Prime Minister has not been involved, but I want to give my experience of engaging with the Government through this crisis. Not only has the Secretary of State been in touch with me on a regular basis, but the floods Minister was in my constituency, up to her knees in floodwater, within 24 hours of the floods hitting. I am incredibly grateful for their support and for the Bellwin funding.
My main town of Bewdley epitomises the problems with flood defences across the country. On the western bank, there are £11 million-worth of demountable flood barriers, which were put in by one of the finest leaders of the Labour party, Mr Tony Blair, in 2001. My community is eternally grateful to the former right hon. Member for Sedgefield. The barriers have done an amazing job and they protect the better part of 300 houses.
On the eastern side—the Wribbenhall side—there are 27 or so homes in Beales Corner that up until now have been protected by temporary flood barriers. After the last floods, property-level flood barriers were put in place, and this is the first time they have been tested. What we tend to forget is that temporary flood barriers are incredibly dangerous. On the first Tuesday of these events, I was out at 11 o’clock at night watching the local services get ready to clear up when the barriers were expected to break down. Even if they stand fast, the barriers are on tarmac, which is not waterproof, so water comes up behind them. Two or three floods ago, somebody managed to nick the pump that was pumping the water out. It is unbelievable that somebody would do that during this type of event.
The point is that the economics do not quite stack up. While we have spent £11 million protecting 300 or so houses on one side of the river, on the other side it is not deemed worth while spending £5 million to protect 20 or 30 houses and keep the whole town open, without losing the use of the bridge. There is some strange mathematics that goes on to work out whether it is worth investing this money. I fear that more value is put on a London property, where the real estate value is some 10 times that in Bewdley, than properties in other parts of the country. However, we must never forget that even though the calculations are based on the real estate value, the true value of a house is that it provides a home for an individual. We must remember that it is a family’s home; it is not a bit of real estate. We must get this right.
We need to have another look and consider what should happen. I am very keen to have a lessons-learned exercise.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the emergency services for all they have done. People who live in my constituency have been very affected by flooding in recent weeks. Constituents I met over the weekend believe that flooding has been exacerbated by farmers not being allowed to clear ditches and spread the contents on their fields because, ludicrously, it is deemed by the EU to be waste product. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should use the opportunity of Brexit and leaving the EU to look at this important matter again?
I think we should also learn lessons from other constituencies that have flood control centres. We do not have one in Stafford, but I am interested to hear from colleagues what we can learn in my constituency—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The intervention is too long.
Mark Garnier
My hon. Friend is right, and in raising the issue of farming, she brings me on to my next point. She is right about having a local control centre, and it is very important that we work with the Environment Agency and deliver what it needs to make sure we have local control centres.
On Saturday morning, I met a farmer, Mr Grainger, who has a problem with the fact that, in order to secure his single farm payment, he has to have three-crop rotation throughout the year. His first crop has been ruined. His farm is a bog of unfarmable clay and mush. He cannot get a second crop in, so he is going to lose his single farm payment, and that is a big problem. I have already raised it with the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and he will look into it, but that is something that Mr Grainger and many other farmers are very keen to get their head around. They want to know whether we can help them.
Flooding is really one of those absolutely terrible things. There are a lot of heroes involved. There is only one thing that I am slightly sad about with having the demountable barriers, and that is the loss of the stoicism and humour of the local fish bar, Merchants, which is a fish and chip shop down the side of the River Severn. Every time it flooded, Mr Merchant used to put a sign outside his shop saying, “All fish caught on the premises”. We will not see that sort of stoicism with the flood barriers.
Mr Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
It is only right that I begin by paying tribute to our blue light services, volunteers and local government workers who helped Britain to weather the storm of unprecedented flooding. With three major storms, Storm Jorge being the latest, February saw record rainfall. We also know that the last 10 years have been confirmed as the warmest decade on record. As a representative of a coastal community, which bears the brunt of the rising sea levels resulting from climate change, I find that deeply concerning.
More than 10,000 homes and 700 non-residential properties are at risk of flooding from the sea in my constituency. In order to quell the threat, Portsmouth City Council is embarking on the largest coastal defence scheme this nation has probably ever seen—the Southsea sea defence scheme. The 4.5 km stretch across the coast will be the first line of defence against flooding for the next 100 years, but are the Government doing enough to support such schemes? The council has told me that it has struggled to obtain full funding under Government rules. Support from Ministers needs to go beyond simply part-funding projects.
Another point that must be addressed is the current Government’s failure to recognise the interaction between flooding and heritage sites. A case example is Southsea castle in my patch, which is a major cultural English heritage asset. As expected, sea defence works surrounding the Henry VIII-constructed fortification require extra care and diligence in stabilising its groundwork, but the way that the Government currently give out funding fails to recognise the increased cost incurred to protect heritage sites. I fear that other local authorities will no doubt encounter that problem as the climate crisis worsens. I would like to ask the Minister if she will address the way that Government funding is structured to consider the extra costs of protecting cherished heritage sites.
The Government also need to set out what they expect local enterprise partnerships to do when it comes to protecting communities from flooding. In my constituency, Portsmouth City Council has been making efforts to secure money from the LEP in a bid to bridge the shortfall in Government funds. That has been at times a real challenge in Portsmouth, arising from the rigid LEP funding structures.
Coastal communities such as my own are not only facing additional threats of flooding due to climate change: they are also at risk because they have been hit hardest by austerity. As the House of Lords Select Committee report shows, communities such as Portsmouth are dealing with a toxic cocktail of even less funding than their neighbours and being forced to face more climate change challenges. There is a clear imbalance that needs to be redressed. The Prime Minister has previously committed to hosting a flood summit, bringing together regional partners and stakeholders, and I echo the concerns we have previously heard that we need to ask the Minister when this summit will take place.
I am asking the Minister lots of questions today. They are questions that I would have asked her in person, but sadly, the Minister previously offered me just 15 minutes for discussion of the biggest sea defence scheme in the country and cancelled two consecutive meetings after repeated requests, one just hours before the meeting. Our coastal communities are rich in leisure, tourism and heritage activities. Their loss would be our nation’s loss and they must be protected. There are gaps in the Government’s current strategy that need to be addressed. It is high time that the Government took notice of this fact and started properly supporting coastal communities such as Portsmouth.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am afraid that I have to reduce the time limit to three minutes, if there is going to be a hope for everybody to be able to make their very short remarks.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The impact of recent floods, particularly associated with Storm Dennis, devastated a number of communities across Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, but it is often true that in the worst and most difficult of times we see the best of community spirit, and that was certainly the case when local residents came out to support each other and community organisations offered their support too. One such example was Merthyr Tydfil football club, which offered a free carvery lunch to any emergency service workers who had been out on that Sunday morning helping residents since the early hours—community spirit at its best.
Despite 10 years of austerity that has hit local authorities hard, both Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council and Caerphilly County Borough Council were on the frontline supporting residents, ensuring roads were kept open as far as possible, assisting with the clear-up operation, delivering sandbags and opening rest centres. On both sides of my constituency, we have significant issues with culverts being blocked, sinkholes, water mains collapsing and bridges that need urgent repair.
Last week at PMQs, I asked the Prime Minister for a cast-iron guarantee that Welsh communities would not be treated differently from other parts of the UK and would get the money we need to recover from flood damage. The Prime Minister gave an assurance that that money would be passported through, and that the Government would work closely with the Welsh Government in the coming weeks. Can I ask today for an update on the engagement with Welsh Government and what level of support Wales is likely to get? The First Minister of Wales has indicated that the cost could be somewhere in the region of £180 million.
The Secretary of State made a comment in his opening speech about coal tips, which, as we know, are largely the responsibility of the Government. Tips are a huge area of concern for my constituency and many others, and we need assurances that both publicly and privately owned tips are adequately monitored. In my constituency, the community of Aberfan suffered more than anywhere due to the impact of coal tips that had not been properly monitored, and people are understandably very concerned about this issue. So we do need today a signal from the Minister that funding for the remedial works required at the tips will be forthcoming.
In conclusion, the Union of the United Kingdom, a Union that I have always felt mattered—I still do—must mean something at times like this. The whole point of the United Kingdom is that we are there to offer support to each other in times of need. While we appreciate that flooding and environmental issues are largely devolved matters, these unprecedented times need unprecedented measures. We need to be there as a Union of four nations to support each other, so I ask the Minister today to outline what support she can offer to Wales in the coming weeks.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today. Diolch am y cyfle i siarad heddiw.
My constituency was one of the hardest hit by the recent floods. Homes and businesses suffered, with costs of millions of pounds, and infrastructure damage is considerable. It was heartbreaking to see that people who had invested so much of their lives in their homes and in their businesses were so severely affected by the flooding. We have been fortunate in having such close- knit communities, and in having workers—from local government staff to those in the emergency fire and rescue services—who are willing to give so much to help those in need, but the toll that this has taken on the mental health and wellbeing of those who were flooded has been considerable, and they will need support for a long time to come.
All this costs money, and I make no apology for my next comments which—yes—are political. I do not “play politics”. This is not a game. My politics are based on compassion, care, fairness and equality, and if the flooding has done nothing else, it has shown how vital those qualities are. Unless we address the broader political issues, the people of Cynon Valley, and elsewhere, will continue to suffer disproportionately from the effects of such flooding.
Austerity policies and welfare reforms have hit Wales hard, and, as always, those reforms have hit the poorest the hardest. Parts of my constituency have some of the highest child poverty figures in the country, and, as we approach International Women’s Day, we should also remember that women have been hit particularly hard by the austerity and welfare reform measures of Tory Governments. Because of Tory Government austerity policies since 2010, funding per head of the population for day-to-day devolved public services in Wales will have fallen by 7% in real terms. A recent report by Wales TUC stated that as a result of the cuts, there are far fewer police officers and fire and rescue services, and more than 30,000 council jobs have been lost—and those are the people on whom we rely to help us at times like this. We can rely on them, but we cannot rely on our Prime Minister and this Government. Greta Thunberg says that
“the world is on fire”.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned. What the Prime Minister was doing during the flooding I do not know, but whatever it was, he certainly was not doing it in Cynon Valley.
The issue of climate change is central to this debate. I have three children, and I want a future for them. While some moves have been made to appear to be addressing the issue, they have been inadequate. Targets remain too long term and plans remain thin on detail, and action is needed now. We must keep up the pressure on central Government to act quickly to tackle climate change.
Putting care for our fellow human beings at the top of our agenda is a political choice, just as pursuing austerity policies was a political choice by the Tory Government. We need to put this right now, because what will happen next time floods occur? The science is clear on this: our valleys can expect to see 50% more rain over the next decade. Unless we act now to redress the imbalance of wealth in the country and to properly fund a green industrial revolution, people in Cynon Valley and the rest of Wales will continue to suffer from the double whammy of poverty and the increasingly frequent and forceful effects of climate change.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), who spoke so eloquently about some of the issues that we all face. My heart goes out to the communities across the country who have been affected by the nightmare of flooding. I am sure the whole House agrees with that sentiment and I support my colleagues in their endeavours in this regard.
I am conscious of time, so I will address just three issues. The first is the scale of the challenge that we all face; I am therefore speaking in favour of the motion. The second is the need for better flood protection in my constituency, which includes Reading itself, Caversham and Woodley, and the third, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend, is the need for leadership.
I think it is worth considering both the vast scale of the storms that we face this winter and the broader long-term trend towards warmer, wetter winters. The fact that that is coupled with drier summers does not reduce the flood risk in the winter; indeed, it increases it, and we need to consider that very seriously. Following such a major series of incidents as we have faced during this autumn and winter, the normal response in the House, and from any sensible Government, would be to request an independent inquiry. I believe that an inquiry is important, and I urge the Government to reconsider and withdraw their amendment.
Let me now move swiftly on to the issues in my own area. Reading sits on the River Thames. It is also the point at which the Kennet, which is a major tributary of the Thames, joins the river. It was striking to go down and observe the scale of the flow, and to see a mighty river like the Thames in flood. It is truly terrifying to see the force of the water coming past. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) spoke well when expressing concerns about his area. In our part of the Thames valley, we are lucky to be in a river catchment that sits on soft rock which absorbs water, unlike colleagues in other parts of the country, including the north of England and Wales, where, so tragically, water floods down very rapidly. We are also lucky to benefit from the “sponge” effect of the chalk in the Cotswolds and the Chilterns. In the long run, however, we face serious prospects of increased flood risk.
In 1947, there were substantial floods in Reading and several hundred houses were affected; these are older properties, built in Victorian times on an existing floodplain on either side of the river. Indeed, some parts of the suburb of Caversham are actually below river level. If the Thames were to flood catastrophically in our area, we would see water spread up to half a mile from the river. I can tell those who have ever visited Reading on a train that, in such an event, they would be travelling on tracks that were lapped by a mighty flood from the Thames. Clearly, there needs to be serious and substantial action to protect the town and the surrounding area from this type of flood and action on the tributaries, as I mentioned earlier. I would like Ministers and officials to put more effort into exploring the possibility of changing land use upstream, given that we have such a large catchment.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
We are seeing the climate emergency at first hand, and not only this; we are seeing flooding as a social disaster, too. While furniture can be replaced and homes can often be repaired, it is the devastating human impact that flooding has on individuals, families and communities that has been most striking—everyday lives uprooted by flooding; families left in temporary accommodation; days of lost schooling; shops, cafés, businesses, the heart of communities, lost and submerged; treasured possessions ruined; and the fear and continual uncertainty each time the rain returns and the rivers rise. It is the human damage that remains.
I was out in my constituency late last Friday night as the rains returned. I saw properties damaged two weeks before by the floods and people up all night, although they were not flooded again. That anxiety, worry and stress cannot be undone. The next day, we held a flooding meeting for my constituents and the communities affected by the flooding. Many came from across the constituency concerned about the impact of the flooding. I was there mainly to listen to their concerns, to feed them back to the stakeholders—Natural Resources Wales and Dwr Cymru Welsh Water—and to find out what was needed and how much money it would take.
We owe it to our constituents across the country to address the environmental and social tragedy that we witnessed last week and two weeks ago and which we are witnessing time and again. We must mitigate the risks of climate change and the climate crisis. We should already be transitioning to a society, natural environment, infrastructure and economy that allows us to combat and reverse climate change, but the Government’s policies, including their austerity policies, have hampered that transition and our ability to upgrade our infrastructure to prepare properly for the future.
I am proud that our Welsh Labour Government took immediate, swift and compassionate action. The very next day, Mark Drakeford, our First Minister, visited the site of the floods—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady does not have time to give way.
Anna McMorrin
I am very glad the First Minister offered a contingency fund for the homes damaged by the floods and that in my constituency we will be getting money from our local authority as well. I ask the Secretary of State: will he provide adequate funding for the properties and the long-term infrastructure that is needed?
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a great relief to be called in a closing minutes of this debate. I will be echoing the sentiments aired by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), in the time I have.
The first thing we need from the Government is flexibility around the resilience grant. A majority of those flooded in 2020 also flooded in 2015. The resilience grants announced as a package of measures nine days after Storm Ciara state that people who claimed a resilience grant four years ago will not be eligible this time. I understand that from Whitehall that might seem logical, but I am afraid it is incredibly short-sighted, given the reality in Calderdale. In some instances, resilience measures paid for by the 2015 grants were damaged in this flood and need replacing. It is also worth bearing in mind that advances in resilience measures have been made since 2015 and so enhanced protection could be possible. Surely there should also be an option for groups of properties to pool their grants to invest in further external flood defences, as was the case in Earby in Pendle, where the local authority made a claim on behalf of residents and used the money to fund flood defences for the whole community.
Secondly, I ask that Calderdale—along with the constituency of the hon. Member for Calder Valley—is granted tier 1 status based on national risk assessment criteria, in recognition of our ongoing management of flood risk. Calderdale is having to find in the region of £3 million from its annual budget every year to commit to ongoing flood mitigation work, and I am asking the Government to recognise this and match it. That would allow us to deliver enhanced ongoing maintenance work on clearing drains and gullies, and to have a dedicated flood response team. It would allow the council to work with the Environment Agency to deal with the massive issues of orphaned assets and of culverts, which, as we have heard repeatedly, are in a state of disrepair. It would also support efforts to manage the really significant emotional and mental stresses of those living with the risk of flooding.
We also need match funding for the Community Foundation for Calderdale’s flood appeal. In 2015, the Government did match fund the money raised by the Community Foundation. We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who is frustrated that the Government are not going further when they are match funding the moneys raised in South Yorkshire. We have not even had the commitments in Calderdale to match fund the work done by the Community Foundation. It has been incredibly proactive and innovative in coming up with the Flood Save and Watermark schemes in Calderdale, but the only way the Community Foundation will be able to help everybody, on the back of what we have faced in this crisis, is if the Government step up and match fund that fundraising.
Another part of the jigsaw is the use of reservoirs as a means of mitigating flood risk. I will be tabling amendments to the Environment Bill on this issue, and I am glad to hear that they will have cross-party support from the Back Benches. I hope that the Secretary of State will look favourably on those amendments as we seek to use reservoirs as a means of mitigating flood risk, which will be incredibly important for residents in Calderdale.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
In my own constituency, several hundred properties and businesses have been affected by flood risks and the flooding of the River Cole. Action to prevent flooding has been hit by years of Conservative cuts to flood defence spending. The Environment Agency, the emergency services and local authorities all play a significant role in managing and responding to flood risk, but insufficient funds are being spent on protecting the most vulnerable communities from flooding and the consequences of extreme weather. Ministers must urgently fund the schemes that these communities say they need, as well as putting in place longer-term flood prevention strategies with appropriate bodies to prevent flooding and to protect homes and businesses.
Many households cannot afford to meet their insurance premiums, which have skyrocketed, and a recent study showed that 20,000 homes that are not protected by the Government’s insurance scheme are also not protected by flood defences. Can the Minister confirm what discussions have been held with the insurance companies? Will the Government commit to making funding available to homeowners who find themselves unable to claim on their own insurance policies?
One of the businesses in my constituency put £50,000 of its own funding towards flood defences. Despite that, it still suffered losses of over £500,000. In some cases—in fact, in most cases—only two sandbags were provided to households, although six to eight are recommended by the Environment Agency. We need to tackle flood damage and flood risk as a matter of urgency and priority. That can be done only with appropriate levels of funding going to the Environment Agency, local authorities and the emergency services, so will the Minister commit to these funds being put in place to ensure that no homes or businesses suffer unnecessarily from floods? In my own constituency it is the River Cole that needs flood defences to be put in place.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a real privilege to stand here today at the Dispatch Box following in the steps of my lovely predecessor, the late great Paul Flynn. Paul came to this Dispatch Box slightly later in his political career, and he maintained that the box was just the right height to prop him up. I can also confirm that it is just the right height for me to hang on to, to stop my knees knocking.
I reiterate the words of condolence expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), the shadow Secretary of State, when he opened the debate. Our hearts go out to the families of those who lost their lives, and we send our deepest sympathies to them and to all the communities affected by the floods caused by Storms Ciara, Dennis and Jorge.
This has been an interesting debate, and I thank all Members who joined our call for action from this Government. Colleagues across the House and from all parties have raised concerns here in the Chamber today, and out there in their constituencies over recent weeks. The debate has given us a chance to bring together those views, stories and experiences.
My hon. Friends the Members for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) spoke movingly about the ongoing fear of flooding and the problem of escalating insurance premiums. My hon. Friends the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and for Reading East (Matt Rodda) made the eminently sensible suggestion that we need to look upstream to develop solutions to the flooding occurring further downstream.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) requested that funding be released immediately to assist their constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) gave us an insight into the Lagoon Hull project, and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Morgan) spoke about the need to protect important heritage sites from floods. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) were clear that they want tier 1 status for their part of the UK too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) talked about specific flood issues such as blocked culverts and the ensuing damage. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) highlighted the ongoing and regular issues of flooding and the problem of the match funding formula, which works against our poorest communities.
A number of Government Members said that we do not need a review; we just need to get on with things. I say to them that a review is not a public inquiry. It is different, and it has a different remit and function. We need to learn lessons and get things right for the future as the disastrous effects of the climate emergency become more and more evident. That is why the motion calls for a review.
I commend the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) for her maiden speech. Her passion for her home town and its steelworks is evident. As the Member representing another steel city, I look forward to working with her to protect the UK steel industry.
Beyond the walls of this Chamber, our world and our planet are experiencing a dangerous, unpredictable and evident climate emergency. We can no longer sit by and watch the world burn, communities flood and people die. I say to Ministers and all the Members sitting behind them that it is now time to get a grip. It is now time for them to show leadership and demonstrate to the families of those who lost their lives, their livelihoods, their homes and their cherished memories and belongings that they care, will do their job and will do what is necessary to save lives.
It was good to hear from the Secretary of State what has been done so far to prevent the flooding and which areas have been spared this time, but too many have not been spared, which is why we want this overarching review to learn the lessons and prepare for future potential flooding events.
The Secretary of State outlined the numerous individual reviews undertaken over the last decade, which highlights just how piecemeal things have been. We need a complete UK-wide review. We do not want an inquiry; we want a review. This should not be party politically difficult. It is essential to allow the people of all parts of the UK to recover from the floods and prepare with certainty for the future. We need to act now.
It is clear, though, that action is an approach that the Prime Minister seems to apply only to a general election campaign. I am sorry to say that he has been missing in action, unlike his Secretary of State. He had no time to visit Rhondda or Pontypridd—no time for York or Calder Valley, or the many other communities affected up and down the country—but this is all about choices. He chose to fly to the Caribbean for a holiday paid for by someone from somewhere. He chose to disappear to his grace-and-favour mansion. He chose to hide in the flat in Downing Street, rather than get down to the Cabinet Office briefing room and give the country the leadership we need. The one thing we now know about this Prime Minister is that when the going gets tough, he does not get going. He goes missing. What a disgrace and a blatant abdication of his responsibility to this country and its people.
We know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) eloquently stated, that austerity has had and continues to have a devastating impact on our environment and natural world. The lost decade of Tory and Lib Dem cuts to local authorities in England, and also to organisations across the country such as the Environment Agency, has seriously undermined our ability to tackle the environmental crisis and deal with the impact of the climate emergency.
Ruth Jones
I will not, as we are short of time.
I am proud to be the Welsh Labour MP for Newport West, and I know what devolution means and that flooding is a devolved matter, but rainfall, rivulets and rivers know no borders. Floods do not respect council or constituency boundaries. We need co-ordinated action across the four countries of the United Kingdom.
The people of Wales have been devastatingly affected by the storms, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) highlighted. Many people were left without power, many homes are currently uninhabitable and many communities are left trying to recover.
Over a quarter of the UK’s flooded homes are in the Rhondda Cynon Taf area of south Wales. My hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) have been tenacious and passionate in standing up for their communities, and that goes for all hon. Members representing people, families and areas affected by the storms and floods, who have debated this important topic today.
The hon. Member for Calder Valley noted that he is furious at the Government’s inaction, and I agree. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) said the flooding should have been raised in Cobra, and I agree. Any Member who wants to stand up for their community and all the areas affected by the recent storms and by years of inaction should support our motion this afternoon.
Let us show that we care about those affected, let us rededicate ourselves to the fight against climate change and, once and for all, let the Prime Minister show that he cares, that he is up to the job and that he will not let down hundreds of thousands of people when they need their Government more than ever. I commend this motion to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Unfortunately, as we all know, flooding does not discriminate, as shown by the many impassioned speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Flooding affects all constituencies, and I thank every single Member who has contributed today.
Before I continue, I will mention the marvellous maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), the granddaughter of a veteran steelworker. She brought to life his world, her world and the world of Scunthorpe. It was vivid and fascinating to hear about the steel industry, toecaps and all. I know she will make a great contribution to this House, and she is very welcome.
At the outset, I add my condolences to those of the whole House to the families and friends of those who sadly lost their life as a result of these storms. I also give my heartfelt thoughts to those who have been flooded.
I have seen the impact at first hand in Bewdley, Worcester and Calder Valley—some of my family live near Bewdley—and I experienced the terrible flooding in Somerset in 2013-14. Some of the impact of that flooding, on both individuals and businesses, is still imprinted on my mind.
Like many others, I pay tribute to all the responders who are managing this ongoing incident and supporting flooded communities, and to the emergency services, the Environment Agency, the local authorities, the Army, Government officials and multiple Departments across Government for their professionalism and relentlessness. Some of them have been working, and are still working, 24 hours a day. Thanks to them all, and thanks to all the communities and charities working on the ground. We have heard so much about their fantastic work.
Rebecca Pow
I will not take any interventions, because I want to refer to a lot of Members who have spoken.
I reiterate that this has been an unprecedented time. February 2020 was the wettest February on record in England and, indeed, right across the UK. Some places received over four times the average monthly rainfall, and the Met Office had to create a new scale on its map to show areas receiving over 200% of their average rainfall. Members who saw the map will have seen that quite clearly. It is absolutely staggering.
Although it is devastating for anybody to be flooded, we must remember that one in six properties in England are susceptible to flood risk. The storms flooded over 3,400 properties in February. Yes, that is terrible for the people who are flooded, but it is equivalent to less than 0.1% of all properties at risk in England. I point out to the shadow Minister that that compares with the 17,000 properties flooded in 2015, so the situation is a great deal better.
Thousands of properties have been protected by the permanent and temporary flood defences about which we have heard so much today. More than 128,000 properties have been protected this winter, despite the record river level rises. Many colleagues have shared their experiences to show how flood defences have helped and have worked. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who gave good examples of that.
In addition, people are becoming more aware of their risk of flooding. Digital services, such as the online flood warnings and alerts provided by the Environment Agency, which I hope the shadow Secretary of State has had a look at, because they are rather good—[Interruption.] He gets them himself, which is excellent. They have had 3.1 million hits so far, and this is very important, because individually we need to take responsibility for resilience. On that note of awareness of risk, I wish to respond to comments of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about the coal tips. Just to clarify, let me say that the Secretary of State for Wales has met local partners, including the Welsh Government and the UK Coal Authority, and it is the UK Coal Authority that has been collecting and analysing data on the situation. Based on that data, which has been gathered quickly, it will establish a schedule of inspections. That will start with dealing with those areas with the highest risk.
Rebecca Pow
I want to point out that this is still a live flooding incident and the outlook is unsettled, although I am pleased to say that in some areas the journey to recovery is beginning.
As the Secretary of State pointed out, the Government have acted swiftly to support those affected. We have supported the authorities by activating the Bellwin scheme. I take the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) about the need for better training and perhaps better information to be disseminated about that scheme. The flood recovery network was activity on 18 February, and that triggered a series of grant payments for affected homes and businesses. The framework was devised from lessons learned from the 2016 floods, and this is only the second time that it has been triggered.
The shadow team called for another review, but yesterday we held a meeting where MPs could talk to the Environment Agency and feed in all their information, data and findings, yet only one Labour Member turned up—all the rest there were Conservative Members, feeding in and reviewing constantly, as is happening all the time with the flood recovery framework. That is what it is there for; people are constantly feeding in from local authorities, from places on the ground, and from flood forums, as are MPs and all the rest.
I wish to touch quickly on insurance, because many Members have raised that issue. In 2016, the joint Government and industry initiative launched Flood Re to improve the availability and affordability of flood insurance for at-risk properties. Before that, only 9% of those households could get hold of flood insurance, whereas now 100% can get quotes from two or more insurers. However, we are looking further at insurance cover through an independent review; the Government are already undertaking a review, so there is no need to have another review into this. We announced that on 27 December and once the information has been gathered in, details will be announced in due course. I hope that that will assuage the concerns of the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), who all called for this. Obviously I wish to reiterate that the Government are absolutely committed to their £2.6 billion of spending on flood defences and £1 billion on maintenance, and we have a commitment to a further £4 billion.
I wish quickly to deal with individual cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) mentioned that the schemes are taking too long. I will ask Sir James Bevan, from the Environment Agency, to give an update on the progress and what is happening there. I will of course look for the letter mentioned by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), and I apologise, because we are normally pretty fast at responding to people.
On the call for help for Toronto Close in Worcester, the EA will continue to work with the community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) both mentioned the flood centre, which I am happy to meet to discuss.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) was as ever an enormous champion for his area. The Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for farming are looking at the three-crop rule.
On the funding formula, I must reiterate to all colleagues that money is handed out with regard to the number of properties at risk and the number of people at risk. The value of properties has nothing to do with it, and deprived areas have a special focus.
We will look at what is happening on flood plains, because both the Secretary of State and I agree that planning needs to be looked at. The Government are absolutely committed on tackling flooding and will have a new strategy going forward. We will be holding a summit in Yorkshire and will let the House know the date of it in due course.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Health Inequalities
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 181 / Noes: 319 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the publication of Health Equity in England: The Marmot Review 10 Years On; is concerned by its findings that since 2010 improvements to life expectancy have stalled for the first time in more than 100 years and declined for the poorest women in society, that the health gap between wealthy and deprived areas has grown, and that the amount of time people spend in poor health has increased across England; agrees with the review that these avoidable health inequalities have been exacerbated by cuts to public spending and can be reduced with the right policies; and calls on the Government to end austerity, invest in public health, implement the recommendations of the review, publish public health allocations for this April as a matter of urgency, and bring forward a world-leading health inequalities strategy to take action on the social determinants of health.
A former Health Secretary, Frank Dobson, whom we sadly lost towards the end of last year, said:
“Inequality in health is the worst inequality of all. There is no more serious inequality than knowing that you’ll die sooner because you’re badly off.”
He was absolutely right. Poverty and deprivation mean that people become ill quicker and die sooner. The current Health Secretary—I understand why he cannot be here for this debate; I do not criticise him for that, given what is going on, and we welcome the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), to the Chamber—said, when we last debated health inequalities, that
“extending healthy life expectancies is a central goal of the Government, and we will move heaven and earth to make it happen.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2019; Vol. 660, c. 153.]
Well, last week the respected academic, Sir Michael Marmot, gave us his assessment of the Government’s attempts to move heaven and earth to narrow those inequalities and extend healthy life expectancy.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I absolutely congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this crucial issue to the Chamber. The health inequalities that we have seen in our communities are bad enough, and the additional inequalities regarding access to GP appointments are even worse, but we are also seeing cuts in local government funding hitting the most deprived areas and adding to those inequalities we are already aware of.
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend makes that point very well. Not only are there inequalities in health outcomes, but inequalities are opening up in access to health services.
I said that I understood why the Secretary of State cannot be here, but he has now joined his colleagues on the Front Bench. I will state, just for the record so that he can be reassured, that I did not criticise him for not being here—I said that I entirely understood why he could not be here. But he is always welcome to listen to my pearls of wisdom, of course.
Michael Marmot’s analysis was shocking, and his conclusions devastating. Let me remind the House of what Professor Marmot found: for the first time in more than 100 years, life expectancy has essentially flattened overall since 2010, and has actually declined for women in the poorest areas of England. In last week’s Opposition day debate, the Health Secretary told Opposition Members that we must debate these issues based on the facts. In fairness, he said that there were life expectancy differences between, for example, Blackpool and Buckingham. [Interruption.] Indeed—gulfs. The Secretary of State made that point. If I may say so, however, I do not believe that he was as clear as he could have been in presenting the full picture for the benefit of Members. When we look at the figures, we see that for more than 100 years, life expectancy has been increasing by about one year every four years. More recently, from 2001 to 2010, the increase was 0.3 years for each calendar year for men and 0.23 years for women. Between 2011 and 2018, the average rate of increase was 0.07 years for males and 0.04 years for women. By any standards, that is a truly dramatic lowering in the rate of improvement in life expectancy between 2011 and 2018.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
The latest figures for my city of Sheffield show that life expectancy is nearly nine years more for women from the least deprived decile than the most deprived, and that gap has widened significantly since 2010. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we approach International Women’s Day and the Budget, we must be mindful of the toll that austerity has taken on our cities and across the country, especially in relation to life expectancy and quality of life?
Jonathan Ashworth
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. She is already an eloquent and passionate fighter for her constituents in Sheffield, and the point she makes is spot on: the reality is that 10 years of austerity has hit women hardest.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jonathan Ashworth
I will give way to my hon. Friend, but then I must make some progress because, as I understand it, some Members want to make maiden speeches in the debate.
Zarah Sultana
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Health inequalities between regions are stark, but there are also huge disparities across short distances. In my constituency, the life expectancy of men in St Michael’s is 13 years shorter than it is of men just 2.5 miles away in Stoneleigh, just south of Coventry. Does he agree that to reduce those shocking health differences, the Government need to tackle underlying economic inequality and systemic poverty, and reverse 10 years of Tory cuts?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady’s intervention might not have seemed very long to her, and I appreciate that she is new to the House, but it was very long. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) for what he said before he took that intervention. It would be much appreciated if the Front-Bench spokespeople took only a few interventions. This is a debate—we can have some interventions—but if Members who intend to intervene and then leave take up all the time at the beginning of the debate, those who sit here all afternoon will not get to speak at the end. We are talking about unfairness here, and that is unfair. The hon. Gentleman has been most courteous, and I know that the Minister has also been courteous in saying that she intends to take only a few interventions.
Jonathan Ashworth
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) was an excellent one. She is right: this variance in life expectancy and these widening health inequalities are surely intolerable, and we have been sent here by our constituents to do something about it.
Taking your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will try not to take any further interventions, because I am aware that Members want to make maiden speeches. I am sure that Members who have been in the House a bit longer will testify that I am usually very generous in taking interventions. I hope Members will understand.
I dare say that the Minister will pray in aid the Office for National Statistics data that came out last night, but that is just a single data point. The ONS data also shows that regional inequalities in health have widened since 2010 and confirms that life expectancy for women in the most deprived decile outside London and the north-west has fallen. The rate of increase in life expectancy slowed markedly after 2010, which just happens to coincide with the swingeing cuts to public services and working-age benefits that the Tory Government imposed upon our society.
When life expectancy stops improving, inequalities widen and health deteriorates. That is why Sir Michael Marmot found that time spent in poor health is increasing for men and women in the most deprived areas of England. He found that there is a north-south gap opening up, with some of the largest decreases seen in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in the north-east. He found that the mortality rate among those aged 45 to 49 is increasing. So-called deaths of despair—the combined effect of increasing death rates from suicide, drug abuse and alcohol-related illness—are a phenomenon we have seen for many years in the United States, and they are now making their morbid presence felt here. Perhaps most shamefully of all, the most deprived 10% of children are now twice as likely to die as the most advantaged 10% of children, with children in more deprived areas more likely to face a serious illness during childhood and to have a long-term disability. Surely this stands as a devastating and shameful verdict on 10 years of Tory austerity and cuts. Of course, we have always had health inequalities since the NHS was created 70-odd years ago, but the point is that the Government should be trying to narrow them, not widen them, because as Professor Marmot says,
“if health has stopped improving it is a sign that society has stopped improving.”
Perhaps some will quibble with Marmot’s findings, but they coincide with what others have found. For example, the all-party group on longevity found a few weeks ago that men and women in our poorest areas are diagnosed with significant long-term conditions when they are, on average, only 49 and 47 years old respectively. The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ Deaton review has also warned about deaths of despair, pointing out that rates of long-standing illness and disability among people aged 25 to 54 have been increasing since 2013. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has today warned of stalling infant mortality rates and how a generation of children is being failed.
I am afraid that this does not suggest that the Government are “moving heaven and earth”, in the words of the Secretary of State, to tackle widening health inequalities, and it does not fill us with much confidence that the Secretary of State is on target to meet his goal of five years’ longer healthy life expectancy by 2035. Will the Minister update us on how we are getting on in meeting that target?
I hope that the Minister, who has responsibility for public health, will also give us some reassurance about the Government’s plans to mitigate the health inequality implications of the covid-19 outbreak. May I press her to explain exactly what the Prime Minister meant at Question Time earlier? Is the Prime Minister saying that statutory sick pay will kick in from day one? If so, we welcome that, but because of low pay, the earnings threshold, precarious work, the gig economy and zero-hours contracts, about 2 million people are not eligible for statuary sick pay. The Prime Minister seemed to suggest at Question Time that such people would be eligible for universal credit, but the Government’s own guidance—I checked the website just before the debate—makes the position crystal clear. The Government’s website says:
“It usually takes around 5 weeks to get your first payment”
in respect of universal credit. The public health implications of that should be blindingly obvious: some of the lowest-paid workers who need to self-isolate will be forced to make a choice between their health and financial hardship. Surely it would be far simpler and smoother just to guarantee statutory sick pay for everyone from day one.
There are also practical problems with sick notes. People are being asked to self-isolate for a fortnight, but as the Secretary of State himself said yesterday, self-certification lasts for only seven days. Will this now be extended from one week to two weeks? I put it to the Minister, as I put it to the Secretary of State yesterday, that we will co-operate and help the Government with emergency legislation to ensure that statutory sick pay for all from day one is on the statue book as quickly as possible. Will Ministers take up our offer?
I dare say that the Minister will want to remind us of the funding settlement for the NHS for the next four years, but she will not be able to remind us of the public health funding settlement for local authorities for the next month because Ministers have not told local authorities what their public health allocations are for the next financial year, which starts next month. It is not good enough to say that the grant overall will increase. These are services that prevent ill health and promote health and wellbeing, as she knows, and those services have been left teetering after years of real-terms cuts of about £1 billion. Smoking cessation services have been cut, obesity services have been cut and drug and alcohol services have been cut, while health visitor numbers are falling, school nurse numbers are falling and mandated health visits are abandoned, yet directors of public health are expected to plan for the next 12 months when they have not even been given their local public health allocations. When will they be published? We are expecting directors of public health to put in place plans to deal with the covid-19 outbreak, and they do not even know their budget lines. That is clearly irresponsible and unsustainable.
It is not just about health funding, however, because that does not tell the full story, as the Secretary of State, in fairness to him, has recognised. He has said before that
“only around a quarter of what leads to longer, healthier lives is…what happens in hospitals.”
We need the Government to focus on the wider social determinants of ill health, too: the childhood experiences we are all exposed to; the neighbourhoods we grow up in; the schools we are nurtured in; the conditions of the work that we do, especially in today’s gig economy; the food we eat; the quality of air we breathe; and the support we rely on in our older years.
Whether it is air pollution, the toxic stress of precarious work or how the benefits system operates, it is those in poverty whose health suffers as a result. Just last week, a longitudinal study in The Lancet found that universal credit is exacerbating mental health issues among claimants, causing tens of thousands to experience depression and mental distress. The Government cannot deny the links between poverty and ill health, because poverty, as Sir Michael Marmot says, “has a grip” on our nation. Some 14 million adults live below the poverty line. We have record food bank usage. More than 4,000 of our fellow citizens sleep rough on our streets, a huge increase since 2010, and over 700 die on our streets.
The poverty a child experiences harms their health at that time and through the rest of their life. Child poverty impairs cognitive development and creates an environment in which mental health and emotional disorders fester. Children in poverty are more likely to be obese, less likely to be up to date with immunisations, and more likely to be admitted to hospital, yet under this Government, the number of children living in poverty has already risen to 4 million, and we have reports of children scavenging in bins. We have 120,000 children pushed from pillar to post in temporary accommodation—a huge increase under the Tories. The working-age benefit cuts that are set to come in will push child poverty levels to the highest since records began in 1961—higher than even in the Thatcher years. That is not levelling up; that is condemning future generations to ill health and shorter lives.
But poverty need not be inevitable and life expectancy does not have to stall. This House should not let health inequality leave an indelible stain on our society. There is a better way, and I commend our motion to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the Minister to move the Government amendment, I should tell the House that we will start with a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of seven minutes, but that will very soon reduce to around five minutes, as there is a very large number of people who wish to speak. I am trying to keep the time limit a little more flexible for those who are making their maiden speeches.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I beg to move an amendment, leave out from “10 Years On” to end and insert:
“notes that Government is committed to level up outcomes to reduce the health gap between wealthy and deprived areas, and supports the Government’s commitment to delivering long-term improvements for everyone no matter who they are, where they live or their social circumstances.”
First, I would like to say that I really welcome this debate on health inequalities, which will help us all to discuss the challenges that we face. Every single one of us, no matter who we are, where we live, or our social circumstances, deserves to live a long and healthy life. Our determination to level up and reduce inequalities by improving the health of the poorest fastest is clear. The recent 10-year anniversary report produced by Professor Marmot comprehensively highlights the important issues, and I thank him for his tireless work in this space, because much of what he drew in the 2010 report is similar to now: these are really complex issues that are very hard to tackle.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will be aware that 64,000 people die prematurely from air quality problems, at a cost of £20 billion, and she is probably aware that those deaths tend to be concentrated among poorer areas and poorer families, so does she agree that we should take decisive action on such things as the electrification of cars and diesel duty so that we reduce overall deaths and thereby have a go at reducing health inequalities as well?
Jo Churchill
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but it typifies the problems we deal with, because air pollution is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Transport and the Department of Health and Social Care. They all have a role to play, and we must ensure we take account of that—it is important that we think about all these different challenges. Helping people to live longer healthier lives while narrowing the gap between the richest and the poorest needs action, a point made by the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana).
Jo Churchill
If the hon. Gentleman will just bear with me and let me make a little more progress, I will come back to him.
Going forward, I am clear that we must integrate good health into decisions on housing, transport, education, welfare and the economy, because we know that preventing ill health, both physical and mental, is about more than just access to our health services.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
In his opening remarks, the Opposition spokesman mentioned smoking cessation just once, yet we know that over half the excess mortality between social classes is directly attributable to smoking. Does the Minister agree that we will not make progress on this important subject unless we get real about this vile poison that has, unfortunately, picked off the poorest for decades and decades? It must stop.
Jo Churchill
I will come on to that point in a few minutes, if my right hon. Friend will bear with me.
Mr Perkins
The Minister is right that this is a very complicated issue and that health inequalities have existed for a considerable amount of time. On the research she refers to, will she tell us whether local government cuts, which have been greater in the poorest areas, with a significant reduction in health education and prevention work, were mentioned as factors for why this continues to be such a major problem?
Jo Churchill
The problems we are dealing with are complex across the piece, which is why we have held the public health budget at the same level this year so that we can start to deliver on them. It is important that local people have local ownership over the issues and challenges in their area, because one size will not fit all.
Jo Churchill
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for just a few minutes, I want to push on rather than incur the wrath of Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am clear that there must be integration across Departments, because dealing with these issues is about having a warm home that is suitable for you and those you love, and about having an environment that sustains your health. It is about good education, so that people are equipped with the skills to look after their health. It is about having jobs that are purposeful and rewarding.
The health inequalities challenge is stubborn, persistent and difficult to change, and I recognise the enthusiasm, energy and frustration that those who will speak in this debate will bring. The Government have firmly signalled their intention to take bold action on these issues. We are committed to reducing inequalities and levelling up. To be effective in reducing health inequalities, we need a long-term sustainable approach across all Departments. Early onset diseases, disability and avoidable mortality are concentrated in poor areas, so this is where we must act if we are going to make the system fairer.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Jo Churchill
I ask the hon. Lady to bear with me for just a minute.
It is important that we improve those with the worst-affected health the fastest. It is unacceptable that a man born in Blackpool today can expect 53 years of healthy life, while a man born in Buckinghamshire gets 68 years. We know that there is also inter-area variation, which is unacceptable. We have an opportunity to seize the initiative to do this across the country. The ageing grand challenge is to ensure that everybody can enjoy a further five years of healthy life by 2035, while narrowing the gap between rich and poor.
We set out our intentions in the prevention Green Paper published last year. The public consultation closed in October, following significant engagement. We had some 1,600 responses, which is more than double the average the Department usually receives from such public consultations. We are analysing the responses and developing our reply, which we will publish shortly. We want to shift the focus from treating illnesses to preventing illnesses and driving healthy lives. The NHS long-term plan contains commitments that outline the role the NHS can play in supporting that shift.
We are passionate, and I am passionate, about our commitment to an NHS that is fit for the future. That is why we are funding it with an extra £33.9 billion.
Debbie Abrahams
I commend the Minister for many of the points she is making. I want to clarify the point about interdepartmental work. We know from seminal works such as “The Spirit Level” that when we reduce the gaps between rich and poor, focusing not just on income but on wealth and power inequalities, we get increases in life expectancy across the community, as well as in social mobility, educational attainment and so on. If the Government recognise that, will they commit to considering what impact policies will have on health inequalities as they are being developed?
Jo Churchill
The hon. Lady will appreciate that I cannot speak for all Departments, but it is my job to drive home the value of health in those Departments and to ensure that, as she says, we think about the broader consequences across the policy-making piece.
In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), smoking does remain one of the most significant public health challenges. It affects disadvantaged groups in particular and exacerbates inequalities. That is particularly apparent when looking at smoking rates in pregnancy. Three weeks ago, I visited Tameside Hospital in Greater Manchester to see its smoking cessation work. It started with a much higher than average smoking rate, and having a tailored public health budget in the locality has allowed it drive down into the inequality within the community. It has a specialist smoking cessation midwife to help these young women, their families and their partners give up smoking—for their own health, yes, but also for the health of their babies.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I packed in smoking 15 years ago. I cannot understand why the NHS does not use people like me to go out there and help other people pack it in.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Member—he has just got himself a job as an ambassador. I congratulate him on quitting smoking, because it is hard.
The specialist centre showed me that with the right holistic support and encouragement, the health of both mum and baby can be improved. Such services will be crucial in achieving the ambition of becoming a smoke-free society by 2030.
Similarly, we must tackle the health harms caused by alcohol, and support those who are most vulnerable and at risk from alcohol misuse. Through the NHS plan, up to 50 hospitals with the highest rates of alcohol dependency-related admissions will have alcohol care teams. That could prevent more than 50,000 admissions every five years. Currently, eight of those teams are in operation, providing seven-day services focused on those areas with the highest levels of admissions related to alcohol dependency.
Alcohol addiction has a devastating impact on individuals and their families, and it is unfair that children bear the brunt of their children’s condition. I know that this topic is dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), who has spoken about it movingly. I pay tribute to the way he has influenced this agenda in this place. I am pleased so say that we are investing another £6 million over three years to help fund support for this vulnerable group.
As is often the case with addiction, there is a toxic mixture of several items. On substance misuse, last Thursday I attended the UK-wide drug summit in Glasgow, along with Home Office Ministers and Ministers from the devolved Administrations. We discussed the challenges associated with drug misuse and listened to Dame Carol Black present her findings from the first phase of her review. I am pleased that my Department will fund and commission the second phase of the review, which will make policy recommendations on treatment, prevention and recovery. Only through the combined efforts of different Departments working together can we hope holistically to improve the health and other outcomes of people with substance misuse problems. Many of us know from our constituency work that they often bounce between various parts of the system. Local authority leadership and action on public health prevention is vital as it will help to focus local measures to decrease health inequalities. As a condition of receiving long term plan funding, every local area across England must set out specific and measurable goals, and ways by which they will narrow health inequalities over the next five and 10 years. Local areas know their localities best.
Jonathan Ashworth
I thank the Minister for her kind words about me a few moments ago. It is an issue dear to my heart and, as she knows, I have run three London marathons to raise funds for alcohol charities—although that is not how I am proposing to fund services in the future.
The Minister has to recognise that whether it is smoking cessation services—I am sure the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) was not implying that I do not think that smoking cessation is important—or drug and alcohol services, they have suffered from a number of cuts. Directors of public health are desperate to know what their funding grant will be for the next financial year, starting in four weeks’ time. Can she tell us when they will know what their allocations will be, so they can fund all the work that she is talking about?
Jo Churchill
I appreciate that they need to know those figures, and they will know them extremely shortly.
I strongly believe that high-quality primary care is also crucial to early and preventive treatment, and key to reducing the health inequalities we are discussing. We are improving access to primary care by creating an extra 50 million appointments in general practice within the next five years, growing the workforce by 6,000 more doctors and 26,000 more wider primary care professionals. Within that, we want to target NHS resources, so that they can help their localities to level up. Through the targeted enhanced recruitment scheme, we are recruiting trainees to work in the areas of the country where we have had vacancies for years, particularly rural and coastal areas, such as Plymouth, and the coastal area of County Durham and North Yorkshire. It has already proved highly successful, with a fill rate of close to 100% last year, and over-subscription in many parts of the country. For that reason, we will increase the places on the TERS from 276 to 500 in 2021, and then up to 800 in 2020, to make sure that we get the skilled staff in the areas where they can do most good.
Practices, working together within primary care networks, will be asked to take action on health inequalities, to be agreed as part of the next 2021-22 GP contract. What happens in one’s early years, even before one pops out into the world, has an impact well into later life. Pregnancy and early years are therefore a key time to have an impact on inequalities. In particular, the fact that women’s life expectancy is so challenged is of acute importance to me. We have many challenges as we travel through life, and making sure that we are equipped to make the best of our lives, particularly as we often act as primary carers, is hugely important.
Pregnancy and early years are a key time to have an impact on inequalities. Many babies do get a fantastic start, but sadly it is not the case for everyone. Children in more deprived areas are more likely to be exposed to avoidable risks and have poorer outcomes by the time they start school. It is right that all universal support has a focus on reducing inequalities, and that it is targeting investment to meet higher needs. Many children are benefiting from investment in childcare and early years education. Fifteen hours of free early years education for disadvantaged two-year-olds and 15 hours of free early years education for all three and four-year-olds is key. We have also announced our commitment to modernise the healthy child programme to reflect the latest evidence to support families.
Jo Churchill
No, I am going to push on. I would particularly like to give those people making their maiden speech, which is hugely important, the time to do so.
For a good start in life, we need to do better in oral health. Tooth decay is the most common oral disease among children, affecting one in four by the time they start school, and it is the most common reason for admission to hospital for children aged five to nine. It is largely preventable. Improving the oral health of children is a Public Health England priority, and a number of actions are under way. Supervised tooth-brushing and water fluoridation are two evidence-based areas in which we want to go further. When I met a number of dentists recently and asked them what they would do if they had the key that would enable them to do anything, they said that water fluoridation would be one of the key measures to reduce childhood inequality across the country. In 2016-17, one in six children had tooth decay in the south-east compared with one in three in the north, and the variation is even greater among local authorities. I am delighted that two authorities, Durham and Northumberland County Councils, recently announced formal proposals to increase water fluoridation, and I hope to be able to facilitate that.
Obesity is a challenge. It is shocking that children in poorer parts of the country are more than twice as likely to be overweight or obese. Children who are overweight or obese are increasingly developing type 2 diabetes and liver problems, they are more likely to experience bullying, low esteem and a lower quality of life, and they are highly likely to become overweight adults with a higher risk of cancer and heart and liver disease. This is a huge cost to the health and wellbeing of the individual, but also to the NHS and the wider economy.
National cardiovascular disease and diabetes prevention programmes have already been introduced, but we want to go further. NHS England has delivered a diabetes treatment and care programme aimed at reducing variation and improving outcomes for people living with diabetes, thus reducing inequalities. We published the third chapter of the childhood obesity plan in July 2019, with further measures to help to meet our ambition to halve childhood obesity by 2030 and reduce the gap between the most and the least deprived. We have seen some important successes. The average sugar content of drinks subject to the soft drinks industry levy decreased by 28.8% between 2015 and 2018. Significant investment has been made in schools to promote physical activity and healthy eating. The childhood obesity trailblazer programme works with local authorities to address the issue at local level, and that really helps, with authorities working together to ensure that the messages sent to children are healthy food messages. The programme has a strong focus on inequalities and ethnic disparities in the context of childhood obesity, and is helping five local authorities to take innovative action. We have a lot to gain, particularly if we help parents, especially in the most deprived areas, to help their children.
It is clear that there is a great deal to do. Let me reiterate that the Government have made real commitments to real action, and that we will increase our focus on the real challenges that people experience in their lives every day. Reducing health inequalities is not an issue that truly divides the House, and I look forward to hearing the suggestions of Members on both sides of the House so that we can move forward. Their contributions will help to fuel our purpose. We share the common goal of reducing inequalities, and we can work together to achieve it.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Obviously I welcome what the Minister has said, but she talked about starting to take action and, given that we have had Conservative-led Governments for the last decade, I find it a bit surprising to hear talk of starting to take action now.
Health is much wider than the NHS. This is a confusion that many people make. Health is about everything else. In his acclaimed review “Fair Society, Healthy Lives”, Michael Marmot defined the social determinants of health: the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. He explained that the variation was driven by inequity in power, money and resource. The review set out how public expenditure could act on the social determinants to reduce health inequalities. The problem is that, although it was welcomed by the coalition Government—there was even a public health White Paper—no action was really taken. In contrast, in 2016, we saw essentially the repeal of the Child Poverty Act 2010, including the reduction targets to get more children out of poverty. In the 2020 Marmot review, therefore, we see not success over the past 10 years, but things going in the wrong direction.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Member about the social determinants of health. Does she agree that, going back 10 or 15 years, to before 2010, the Labour Government appreciated those determinants and directed public policy to that end?
Dr Whitford
I do. I respect the work that Labour did, and child poverty was falling. Interestingly, the upturn in child poverty we have seen did not happen with the crash in 2008; it happened after the 2012 welfare changes. That is striking. The impact of Government policy has been austerity in every way and in every approach to individuals, families and communities. We have seen slow income growth for the vast majority of people over the last decade. There has been absolute inequality. The majority of the growth that there has been, has been at the top. The national living wage simply is not a living wage. More people are in insecure work—zero-hours contracts, the gig economy—and do not have protections. As the shadow Health Secretary mentioned, in all the discussion about covid-19, we have been trying to highlight that people on low pay and insecure contracts do not get sick pay, yet we will be asking them to stay at home for two weeks and self-isolate. In the meantime, the wealthiest people have actually trebled their wealth. So categorically we have not all been in it together over the last 10 years.
In addition, we have seen a restriction on public expenditure. The regressive welfare cuts of 2012 and 2016 have reduced support for families by 40%: the benefit cap, the benefits freeze, the two-child limit, the five-week wait for universal credit, which puts people in rent arrears and debt, personal independence payments, the bedroom tax. Eighty per cent. or more of these cuts have affected women directly because they tend to be lower paid, to be carers and to rely more on services. In the main, they are responsible for children. The disabled have also been particularly hard hit. We have not seen a cumulative impact assessment of female lone parents who are disabled and have three or more children. Some of them have had their income slashed.
There have been cuts to local government and services. Interestingly, the least deprived areas face 16% of cuts, while the most deprived on average had 31% cut from their local government budget. I have heard Labour Members talk about between 40% and 60% cuts in their local government budgets. There are changes in the pipeline to move £300 million from local authorities in the north to the south. I wonder if that will be reversed now that the Conservative party has won some seats in the north.
Jamie Stone
Some years ago, when I was a councillor, I had a harrowing case involving a young female constituent who was clobbered by the bedroom tax. She has multiple sclerosis and she was going to lose a lot of cash. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Scottish Government for the action they took to ameliorate and offset that tax.
Dr Whitford
I thank the hon. Member for that recognition. The Scottish Government are spending more than £100 million every year in mitigating some of these cuts—they pay the bedroom tax and they have set up the Scottish welfare crisis fund—but that is money that should be going into devolved areas, not patching up austerity decisions here; it is not the role of the Scottish Parliament just to mitigate.
Public health in England has been cut by £850 million—again, the greatest cuts to the poorest areas—and it is exactly the same with future planned cuts. This has led to cuts in smoking cessation projects. There is no point standing up and talking about the importance of stopping smoking—we all know that. People who have smoked for decades need help to stop and those services are critical. We have also seen cuts to drugs and alcohol projects and to sexual health projects, and all those have an impact on the poorest people.
The Minister, who is no longer in her place, might have listened to Dame Carol at the drugs summit in Glasgow but, sadly, the Minister for Crime and Policing, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), did not. He came to Glasgow, made his speech and then left before all the expert evidence was given. We also hear of a social care gap across England of over £6 billion. Again, that affects women if they have to give up work to look after elderly relatives or disabled children. This rolling back of the state has affected the social determinants and increased health inequalities. Child poverty has increased, as we have heard, with 4 million children affected, and 1,000 Sure Start centres have been closed. Education funding is down. There is a housing crisis and therefore a rise in homelessness. People with insufficient funds to afford a healthy life are depending on food banks, and deprived communities are simply losing hope.
Poverty is simply the biggest driver of ill health and has the biggest individual impact on life expectancy. The increase in life expectancy in England has stalled for the first time in 120 years—the first time since 1900. The gap between the most and least deprived has widened: the gap is now almost 10 years for women and the life expectancy of some women in areas of the north-east of England has dropped by almost a year.
Dr Murrison
I always listen with great respect to what the hon. Member has to say, but given that the SNP has its hands on many of the levers relating to the things she has discussed this afternoon, I am assuming from what she has said that Scotland is in the wonderful position of having narrowed health inequalities. Could she perhaps compare and contrast what has happened in Scotland with what has happened in the rest of the United Kingdom? I rather think that the two are very similar.
Dr Whitford
If the right hon. Gentleman waits to hear the rest of my speech, I will highlight some of the differences in child poverty.
We have seen life expectancy for those women falling, but when we look at healthy life expectancy, the gaps are even bigger. Time spent in poor health is increasing, and that of course puts pressure on the NHS and care services. We in this Chamber are always discussing the pressure that the NHS is under. Emergency admissions in areas with low life expectancy are double the numbers in wealthier areas. Women in deprived areas will now spend two decades or more of their life in poor health. Improving the healthy life expectancy by at least five years was actually a policy in the industrial strategy, so that people could be active and engaged in the economy, but what we have seen is an adverse effect both on health and health equality.
We know that someone’s health for most of their life is determined in the early years, even starting when their mother is pregnant. Child poverty is central to this and it is rising. It is defined as children in households with less than 60% of median income. England had child poverty down to 27%, but it is now 31%. Scotland had it down to 21%, and it is now 24%. That is because welfare changes are taking place right across the UK. Poverty is decided in this Chamber; it is not decided anywhere else, and the Scottish Parliament, as we have heard, spends a lot of energy on trying to mitigate it.
As we know, housing costs are a major contributor because of the shortage of housing. This is a rising issue among the poorest: 38% of the poorest will spend 30% or more of their income on rent or housing. That figure was 28% 10 years ago. The Scottish Government have built 87,000 affordable houses, and that is part of why our child poverty level is lower. It is the housing impact. In the 2015 general election, the Conservatives promised 200,000 starter homes. They built precisely zero.
Some 4 million children are growing up in poverty, and that will affect their whole lives. Whenever the issue is raised at the Dispatch Box, we are told that unemployment is down and that people must work their way out of poverty. We are told that that is how we change things, yet two thirds of those children already have a working parent. The problem is that all of this drives ill health.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that children living in poverty are more likely to suffer mental health issues? They face a double whammy, as the Children’s Commissioner recently found, in that there is also a postcode lottery in spending on children and young people’s mental health, which varies between about £15 and £200 per person, depending on the area.
Dr Whitford
I totally accept that, and actually, children in low-income families have three times the rate of mental health problems. Three-year-olds in a household with an income of less than £10,000 have two and a half times the chronic diseases, and by the time they start school, we find that the poorest children have over a year’s gap in vocabulary. It is important to try to balance that. That is one reason that the Scottish Government are investing in early learning for all children—all three-year-olds and four-year-olds and vulnerable two-year-olds—and also have put in a pupil equity premium that allows the school to have additional funding to try to meet the challenge where they are serving poorer communities.
The problem starts before the child is born. A woman carrying a female child is carrying her grandchildren, because the eggs in a female are formed in the womb. That means that if that mother is badly nourished, she will be affecting health for the next two generations. That needs to be changed, which is why we have invested. We have the best start grant, which goes to the pregnant woman at birth, when the child starts nursery and when the child starts school. There is also food support, because we need to change this right at the start of life.
Health and wellbeing should be an overarching priority for any Government and for all their citizens, regardless of where they live. This requires a “Health in all policies” approach, not saying, “Clean air is DEFRA’s issue.” We need this as a cross-government policy whereby every decision is checked to see whether it will improve the physical, mental and environmental wellbeing of the citizens the Government are responsible for.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. As colleagues can see, a large number of Members want to contribute to the debate. I am going to impose an immediate seven-minute time limit. I should also remind hon. and right hon. Members that, if they take interventions, that is likely to prevent others from speaking. Just bear that in mind.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I draw your attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising NHS psychiatrist.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who is absolutely right to highlight the fact that health inequalities and their determinants go much wider than the NHS. We are talking about issues to do with housing, poverty and employment. We know that poverty and deprivation are associated with poor health outcomes, both physical and mental, and health inequalities.
In that respect, some of what I am going to say will ask the Government to revisit legislation that we passed as part of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 in relation to addiction services. That is where I shall concentrate my remarks, because we are all aware that addiction services treat some of the most vulnerable people in society, but face particular challenges and treat people often with some of the lowest life expectancies. In that respect, we must recognise that the changing commissioning arrangements, the move towards commissioning of addiction services by local government and some of the funding restraints that are present in the system have impacted on the quality of service delivery.
I shall touch on Dame Carol Black’s report later, but we have seen that, in some areas, there is now minimal provision in many addiction services, and local authorities often look towards the lowest bidder to provide their services. I hope Members on both sides of the House think that is not necessarily a good thing, because we want to see effective addiction services that make a difference for patients and for the people who need them. What we see, though, is that services have deteriorated over the past few years. Services have become increasingly fragmented, and the numbers of dependent opioid users and opioid deaths are rising. That may well be because there are greater medical comorbidities in that particular group, and the age profile may be associated with a higher mortality rate.
Dame Carol Black’s report makes some important points about the challenges. She includes a timeline that indicates how addiction services have been delivered, and she highlights that in 2005, under the previous Labour Government, a ring-fenced, pooled treatment budget was created, centrally funded and allocated on need. Additional funding contributions were made by local authorities, the police and the NHS. Funding increased from £50 million to nearly £500 million during the 2000s, which saw a step change in the ability of addiction services to respond to the needs of local populations.
The biggest change in the delivery of addiction services came with the Health and Social Care Act, in which responsibility for the commissioning of drug and alcohol services moved to local authorities. I do not need to rehearse many of the arguments, but it is worth highlighting some of the challenges we now face. A number of those challenges are a direct consequence of that change in commissioning arrangements.
Overall funding for treatment has fallen by 17%. It is not possible to disaggregate alcohol and drug treatment spend, but many local authorities will have reduced expenditure on drug and alcohol treatment by far larger amounts, with residential services—that is in-patient facilities—being particularly hard hit. The report says:
“Likely many areas are now offering the bare minimum service with large increases in worker caseloads an inevitability. The overall numbers in treatment have fallen at a similar rate as funding with the largest decreases seen in opiate users (and those in treatment for alcohol only).”
At the same time, we are aware from Home Office data that the prevalence of opiate and crack use is increasing and that the number of opiate users in treatment is falling, so there is a challenge for the Government to address in how those services are delivered and commissioned.
We should also recognise that many people who are in need of addiction services have two or more other complex needs. From Dame Carol Black’s report, we see that over 70% are unemployed, close to 40% also need mental health treatment, over 15% are homeless and over 25% have been referred from the criminal justice system. She states:
“Over 60% of opiate clients have two or more complex needs alongside their drug use”.
In the brief time I have left, it is worth reflecting that reduced funding is available to treat those people, but the commissioning arrangements mean that drug and alcohol services are commissioned by local authorities and are no longer integrated or joined up with the NHS, which makes it much harder to treat people with co-existent mental health problems; to find housing solutions, as the NHS does on a daily basis, for patients with a housing need; and to address some of the challenges we face in joining up and integrating care with the criminal justice system.
I hope the Minister will take away those challenges.
Jonathan Ashworth
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman —I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will be very brief.
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I agree with every word—I hope I have not ruined his career prospects by saying that. Does he agree that the way in which services are commissioned, and the lack of integration with wider mental health services, is leading to a problem in recruiting addiction psychiatrists into the sector?
Dr Poulter
Absolutely, and that key problem was also highlighted in Dame Carol Black’s report. I should refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests at this point. I believe that in London there are only five training posts available in addiction psychiatry. We have a lack of addiction psychiatrists, of trainee psychiatrists coming through with accreditation in the area of addictions, of nurses with a specialism in that and of a properly trained workforce in addictions, as a result of the commissioning arrangements. That is a real challenge, and we have to address it.
Part of the reason for that is the separate commissioning pathway we now have through local authorities. It was flagged up as a challenge when the 2012 Act passed through this House, but the warnings given at that time have, unfortunately, come to fruition, and this is now causing challenges in the production pathway of addiction workers. The real challenge faced by the sector is that the people whom addiction services are trying to care for are now falling through the cracks of those fragmented services and the quality of service provision is not as good as it should be. I know the Minister will look at this constructively, but I hope it will be taken away and examined, so that we can see how we can put things in a better place for people experiencing alcohol and drug dependency, as they are often the people who have the greatest health inequalities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a great pleasure to call Mary Kelly Foy to make her maiden speech.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech to the House today. To begin with, I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Roberta Blackman-Woods. Roberta served the constituency for 14 years and was a tireless advocate for the people of Durham. Most recently, she was shadow Minister for Housing and Planning. Roberta was passionate about that work and highly respected for it. I want to say, on a personal level, that she has been a great help to me recently, and I wish her all the best in the next phase of her life.
It is an enormous privilege to be the Member of Parliament for the wonderful City of Durham. I want to thank the constituency Labour party members for their hard work and support in ensuring that I was elected, and the constituents who have placed their trust in me. I must also thank my family who have supported me throughout my life.
Durham has an incredible heritage. It is impossible not to be inspired when you see the cathedral on the horizon, and it is so central to the life of the city. It is fitting that the cathedral is now surrounded on all sides by the world-renowned Durham University, which is providing essential jobs and technology, linking Durham to all parts of the world, and giving our city a real vibrancy.
Durham has another history that needs to be celebrated: its mining heritage. It is a tradition that prides itself on resilience, forged by the trade union movement. All of that is encapsulated in the Durham miners’ gala, when banners from the villages that surround the city are proudly paraded through the streets, accompanied by brass bands. I hope that the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) has now learned that it is held in our constituency, which is very much still Labour.
To prepare for this speech, I read those of my predecessor, Roberta, and her predecessor, Gerry Steinberg, and it was fascinating. Gerry’s speech was made in 1987. He talked about the devastating levels of unemployment after the closure of the coal mines, and the refusal of the Thatcher Administration to tackle the resulting insecurity in people’s lives and work. This was a time of de-industrialisation, a widening north-south divide, trade unions being crushed, a run-down NHS and the poll tax on the horizon. In contrast, my immediate predecessor, Roberta, gave her speech in 2005, eight years into a Labour Government. She referred to unemployment being halved, the minimum wage, GCSE results improving, and a new state-of-the-art further education college being built, as well as a hospital and secondary schools. It could have been a different country.
Then I reflected on my life during those periods; these were the experiences that made me the socialist that I am. In 1987, I had just finished a youth training scheme. I was in insecure work, and shortly afterwards I was made redundant. My dad, too, was thrown on the scrap heap after Swan Hunter’s shipyards closed.
In 1989, my first daughter came into the world, born 10 weeks premature and needing a ventilator before she could breathe on her own. Unfortunately, this basic piece of equipment was not available at the hospital, nor was it available in any of the surrounding hospitals. This was a direct result of deliberately running down the NHS. Eventually, a ventilator was located 30 miles away and Maria was born three hours later by emergency C-section. She suffered brain damage and lived her whole life with severe cerebral palsy.
The policies of Governments greatly affect the lives of ordinary people. The actions of the Conservatives and their former coalition partners have seen the stalling of the increases in life expectancy. This is extraordinary and has not happened since 1900. Labour has been accused of wanting to take us back to the 1970s; well, the Conservatives have taken us back to the 19th century.
Last week, the Marmot report on health inequalities showed the impact of austerity—something that I have seen first-hand. In my constituency, a child born on the Sherburn Road estate can expect to live 15 years fewer than a child born in the most affluent parts of the city, just a couple of miles away. Even more shockingly, a recent report in the British Medical Journal showed that between the most deprived local authorities—including County Durham—and the rest, inequalities in infant deaths, which decreased sharply under the Labour Government, have now started to increase under Conservative austerity. Just what kind of society is being created?
There are families in the former pit villages of Ushaw Moor, Coxhoe, Brandon and others in my constituency who are trapped in poverty. Children and grandchildren of the miners who built the wealth of this country are now having to use food banks and undergo a cruel benefits regime. Is it any wonder that the police have reported that the main issue affecting these communities is male suicide?
Improving health in Britain is not just about refurbishing hospitals; it is about having a good education, a secure and loving home and a regular source of income. Until we address these social issues, we will not see any substantial changes in public health. As Professor Marmot says:
“What good does it do to treat people and send them back to the conditions that made them sick?”
Labour has a strategy—oven-ready, you might say—to tackle these injustices and build a fairer, more equal society. It was laid out in our manifesto. Unfortunately, we are not able to deliver it yet, but that will not stop us holding this Government to account or campaigning for a better society. My pledge to those who feel the harsh impact of Tory austerity—those who will feel health inequalities hardest—is that I will fight for them, because I have not come to this place just to lay out the problems: I and my party will be part of the solution.
The city of Durham is steeped in history, but it is the future we fight for. The motto of the Durham miners may be 150 years old, but it was adopted by people who also suffered defeats and setbacks but carried on their struggle and, over time, won improvements in their industry and in the lives of entire communities. The motto is still very apt, and it is one that I hold close to my heart as I start my parliamentary journey:
“The past we inherit, the future we build”.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) on her maiden speech. It was interesting; funnily enough I did not agree with a considerable amount of it, although that is to be expected.
I am the second working medical professional to speak, following my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). We are both from the same party and speak with some knowledge of the difficulties that we face. The moment that this sort of debate comes up, health professionals from our own particular field have a go at us.
I was delighted that the Minister referred to child dental health, on which I feel a push from behind every time there is a health debate. When I first came to this country, I worked in a really deprived area of east London. Trying to treat children there was like trying to fill a bath with the plug out. The statistics for child dental health are still grim today: 23.3% of five-year-olds have tooth decay, rising to 33.7% in deprived areas. The rate drops to 13.6% in less deprived areas, but it is still bad. Tooth decay is the single greatest reason for hospital admissions for five to nine-year-olds. Last year, 25,702 children went to hospital because of tooth decay. Worse than that, 45,000 children and young people aged up to 19 went to hospital because of tooth decay.
The estimated cost of treating these children in hospital is about £50 million annually. Virtually all children will require a general anaesthetic. Every anaesthetic, especially for little ones, carries a risk—an unnecessary one. The cost is made worse because those cases occupy trained health professionals and hospital facilities that could be used for other NHS services. It makes me very cross because dental caries, as the Minister has said, are virtually entirely preventable. Put simply, the cause is acid from sugar and dental plaque. Britons eat about 700 grams of sugar a week—an average of 140 teaspoons. That intake is not spread evenly; it is higher in the north and lower in the south-east. As Members might expect, teenagers have the highest intake of all age groups, consuming, probably, about 50% more.
The Government are taking action and the sugar tax is helping. Sara Hurley, the chief dental officer, along with many charities and organisations, has a drive to teach children, even down to day nursery children, how to brush their teeth. It is helping but, as the Minister mentioned, far and away the best proven method to reduce tooth decay among children—and even, to some degree, among adults—is the fluoridation of the water supply. Fluoride increases the resistance of tooth enamel to decay dramatically. In the United Kingdom, approximately 330,000 people have naturally occurring fluoride in their water supply. Traditionally, another 5.8 million in different parts are supplied with fluoridated water. But that covers only 10% of the total population. The cover in the United States is about 74% and rising. In Canada, it is 44% and rising, in Australia, it is 80% and rising, and even little New Zealand has managed 70% and rising.
We do have fluoridation legislation, but it is left to local authorities to instigate the process and to compel water companies to fluoridate their water supplies. There is no financial advantage for local authorities if they take such action, but the savings that come through to the NHS are considerable.
The second problem with the legislation is that few local authority boundaries are coterminous with the boundaries of the water companies, which means that the direction and implementation get difficult, complex and sometimes nigh on impossible. To my mind, the simple and sensible answer would be for the application to be put into the hands of the Department of Health and Social Care so that the policy could be applied step by step across the country, going for the most deprived areas first. That is a big ask and it will require a brave Government, but from reflecting on the Labour party’s previous position on fluoridation, I would hope for Labour’s support.
Whenever I raise the issue of fluoridation, the green ink flies. Letters come in and broomsticks whizz around my house as people come up with extraordinary contrary points. The latest Department of Health figures show that the odds of experiencing dental health decay in fluoridated areas were reduced by 23% in five-year-old children in the less deprived areas, and by 52% in those living in the most deprived areas.
Water fluoridation reduces hospital admissions for dental extractions for children by 59%, and in deprived areas by as much as 68%. We have the opportunity to be world leading, to give our children this chance, and to combat health decay and children going to hospital.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. After the next speaker, I will reduce the time limit to four minutes in an attempt to get everybody in. It is a great pleasure to call Taiwo Owatemi to make her maiden speech.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate about health inequalities in our country. My constituents gave me the privilege to serve Coventry North West, and it is an immense honour to be here. I owe my amazing team of activists—and, most importantly, my constituents —a great deal.
I follow in the footsteps of a much loved member of this House, Geoffrey Robinson, who has been a fixture of the city and this Chamber for 43 years—long before I was even born. Geoffrey’s unwavering support for our local motoring industry was nationally applauded. During his final term, he was instrumental in changing the law on organ donations, which is something that I will continue to champion. I thank him for his service to our constituency, and wish him and his family the very best.
Coventry is a proud English city of culture, and my part of the city boasts incredible diversity. Our vibrant Irish and Sikh communities helped to grow Coventry’s booming industries after the second world war. Coventry was a major site for the UK’s car manufacturing. We hosted the likes of Jaguar Land Rover, Peugeot and the General Electric Company—for hon. Members whose memories can stretch that far. Indeed, we were a city that produced things, but that industrial base was almost wiped out overnight by Thatcher and her Government. The city has seen a lot of changes since the closure of these companies, but Coventry has always been an inclusive city—from university lecturers to students; from public sector workers to manual labourers. Even today, so many have made my part of Coventry their home.
My constituency is also diverse in the lay of its land—from the sprawling green country fields of Bablake approaching the villages of Keresley and Allesley to the west, to the cityscape further to the east—but at its heart is its community spirit. Across our six wards, residents are supported by numerous community centres and voluntary organisations with a common goal: to enrich and empower the community. As the first female MP for Coventry North West, I hope to follow in the footsteps of Lady Godiva and champion fairness. I am also the first MP of Nigerian heritage—specifically Yoruba —to represent a west midlands seat, and that is an honour that I carry with immense pride.
Many people would not have guessed this, but I am actually a twin. As a piece of trivia for hon. and right hon. Members, I can tell the House that in the Yoruba culture, every twin is named Taiwo or Kehinde, with Taiwo being the name of the first-born twin. My brother, mum and uncle are watching from the Gallery this afternoon, and I like to imagine that my dad and older brother Ayobola are looking down proudly from even higher up, in heaven, right now, too. I thank my family for all their unwavering support and encouragement.
My two fellow Coventry Labour MPs and I reflect the diversity, tenacity and strong values of Coventry. I look forward to working with them to advance Coventry’s cause during this Parliament, and to welcome the world as we celebrate becoming city of culture in 2021.
I am a churchgoing Christian, and my values—of community, family, inclusion, and never walking by when we see hardship—are grounded in my faith. I know that those values are shared by the people of Coventry, as Coventry is the city of peace and reconciliation. Those values are also Labour values. Indeed, I believe that everyone should have the opportunities they need to live a long, healthy and happy life.
The topic of this debate—health provision—is very close to my heart. Having lost my father when I was aged just seven, I became passionate about healthcare, and about supporting the dedicated professionals who sacrifice so much for us for so little thanks. But as a senior cancer pharmacist, every day I have seen our health service and adult social care system fail under continuous strain, without the resources they need. I was astounded to find out that the poorest in Coventry can live 18 years less than the richest in Westminster. We in Coventry deserve a better standard of care across the board, and I will be working with my colleagues in Coventry to fight for an urgent care centre so that we can have that better standard—I will always fight for that. Now that we have left the European Union, the Government can finally put their money where their bus is and properly fund the national health service, giving places such as Coventry the funding they need to provide good-quality healthcare.
Homelessness is becoming an increasing concern in our community, and Coventry has the largest food bank in the country. Although that reflects the good will of the people of Coventry, it also highlights the Government’s failures to help to cover the cost of living, and to invest properly in local emergency support for vulnerable people in crisis. Our housing is in crisis, too. At the core of every housing project should be genuinely affordable social housing, and legislation should require proper social infrastructure to be built alongside these projects. And, yes, we must also protect our green spaces.
Social mobility is a passion of mine. I believe that education provides a path to success. It astounds me that since 2013, pupils in my constituency have faced an 8.7% real-terms cut in funding. We are well below England’s average for educational attainment, and pupils with special educational needs and disabilities are often left behind, with inadequate provision to meet their needs. For too many young people growing up in my constituency, violence at home or on the streets is a reality, while West Midlands police and community services have faced severe cuts. This, too, can hold young people back. How can this Government claim to be the party of aspiration and opportunity when they stunt the growth and true potential of my constituents?
Coventry deserves the chance to thrive. It is in the nation’s interest that Coventry forms a central part of the midlands engine. Our history of technological and industrial innovation has created a natural home for world-class industrialists, researchers and academics—which, as I am sure the Government will agree, makes Coventry the obvious location for the environmentally sustainable Gigafactory. The midlands engine cannot run without the motor of a place like Coventry, and I will make sure that my city is never left behind.
As the MP for Coventry North West, I will ensure that every decision I make in this place is relevant to the lives of the people who put me here. I do not want to be known for extraordinary words in Hansard, but rather for the tangible difference my words make. I will be the MP who listens to her constituents about their concerns and aspirations. I will be the MP who protects our jobs and our beautiful green spaces, who stands up for good-quality homes and high-quality education, who sticks up for our NHS and protects the most vulnerable, and who fights for more police on our streets and opportunities for the next generation. I will spend my time in this House standing up for my constituents, for my patients and for the public services on which we all depend. My community in Coventry expects no less, and that is how I will serve it.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi).
It should not matter where one lives in the UK in terms of leading a healthy lifestyle, but we must accept that sometimes there is poor health and the possibility of poor health. I am pleased to see that this Government are not shying away from the challenge, with record amounts of investment in our NHS, now enshrined in law—the largest and longest funding settlement in the history of the NHS. But we all need to start having an honest conversation with ourselves about closing the gap on health inequality, because it is one of the biggest challenges we face in this country. We need to start to admit to ourselves that we must make different lifestyle choices. We must think about the smoking and drinking we are all doing and the lack of exercise.
Loneliness is a big one for me. Loneliness is a killer. Far too many people in this country face life alone, whether that be due to their age, their disability, or just their own personal circumstance. In my community, we have the brilliant Huthwaite Hub, which is a charity I helped to set up four years ago with two brilliant ex-schoolteachers, Dai James and Geoff Jago-Lee. The idea was simple: get a big room, fill it full of woodwork machines, tools and materials, and then invite people who are socially isolated to come along and learn new skills. The community and local business really came together and donated everything we needed, and a lottery grant was the final piece of the jigsaw. The brilliant Huthwaite Hub has now seen hundreds of people come through its doors who otherwise would have been sat at home depressed and surviving on antidepressants. That facility is better than any tablet and has transformed the lives of many people in my area. I invite anybody in this House, and especially the Minister, to come and visit the brilliant Huthwaite Hub.
I sometimes get a little bit fed up with the Labour party using the subject of health as a political football. At the last four general elections Labour has put health at the top of its campaign agenda and has been rejected at the ballot box every single time. Just a few months ago, it suffered its biggest defeat since 1935, which, roughly translated, means, “The public just do not trust it.” Something very noticeable in areas like Ashfield and Eastwood, and in other similar constituencies throughout the country that have always been the victims of health inequality, is that they have always had a Labour MP and Labour-run councils—that is, until the election last year. As somebody once said, “Things can only get better”. There is a Budget coming shortly, which will see record amounts of investment in infrastructure all over the country, especially in places like Ashfield and Eastwood.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, to strengthen the resilience of local communities in combating health inequalities, it might be a good idea for the Government to set up a community wealth fund to be funnelled into some of the most deprived wards, such as Bridge ward in Ipswich, where the healthy life expectancy is around five years lower than the national average?
Lee Anderson
I completely agree.
As I was saying, the Budget will see record amounts of investment in places like Ashfield in Eastbourne. That will, in turn, create highly-skilled jobs and better employment opportunities, which will turn the clock back on decades of decline. With this levelling up of wealth in places like Ashfield, I am positive that we will see a levelling up of health. If we are going to make the argument that poor places have poor health, the solution is simple: let us make the poorer places better off by providing better jobs, better education, better training and better opportunities in life, which will only come from a Conservative Government. Already in Ashfield, we have up to £75 million of town centre and future high streets funding coming. We are also looking at opening up old train lines, to increase connectivity. That sort of positive action in Ashfield will increase prosperity in health and wealth.
My wife is currently in Queen’s Medical Centre in Nottingham, after having her third operation in three years. She has had a double lung transplant, an operation to remove 2 metres of intestine and a good old bout of sepsis, and yesterday she had her gall bladder removed. When I told her that I was going to have this week off to look after her, she said, “No, you go down there to Parliament and tell them people in that Chamber that this is a brilliant NHS”—it keeps her alive every single day.
As I said, it is a shame that the Opposition are once again playing politics with a very emotive subject. I want to assure them that in places like Ashfield and other usually solid Labour areas across the midlands and north, we now have hard-working Tory MPs in place who will not only level up wealth but will also level up health.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), whose area I know extremely well, and the fabulous maiden speeches on the Labour Benches, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), who spoke most warmly about my city and about her predecessor; I concur with her comments.
Since 2010, the Government have chosen to implement unfair, regressive economic and social policies that have widened the gap between rich and poor, holding individuals back and leaving entire communities behind. Those policy choices have ensured that the last decade has been marked by widening health inequalities and deteriorating health. In Coventry, where poverty and deprivation are entrenched in some communities, the progress made in the years up to 2010 in terms of improving people’s life chances, quality of life and life expectancy have been derailed by this Government.
Over the last decade, people in our most deprived communities have experienced rising levels of in-work poverty, food insecurity and food bank reliance. They have found it more difficult to access good-quality housing and secure, well-paid employment, while their incomes and living standards have declined significantly. Public services and welfare spending, which would once have alleviated some of those pressures, have been slashed, removing a crucial safety net. That has an impact on not only people’s health but their ability to make positive healthy choices, which ultimately increases their chances of premature mortality and morbidity.
The evidence shows that there is now a life expectancy gap of 11 years between men living in the most deprived areas of Coventry and men in the least deprived areas, and the gap is 10 years for women. That gap has increased by nearly one and a half years over a five-year period. Those living in the most deprived areas not only die much earlier than those in more affluent areas; they also live much longer in poor health. Data shows that poorer men in the city will experience 17 years fewer in good health than their more affluent counterparts, while poorer women can expect 18 fewer years in good health.
Sadly, that is not altogether surprising when we consider the fact that some of the most deprived areas in the city experience higher rates of economic inactivity, fuel poverty and air pollution, while having fewer green spaces, all of which impact people’s mental and physical health and wellbeing. Moreover, Coventry’s statistics on smoking, drinking and obesity show that 33% of adults who smoke live in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods; hospital admissions for alcohol-related illnesses and deaths are much higher than national rates; and overweight and obesity rates for children are higher than average.
We all know that tackling health inequalities is not a job that belongs exclusively to the NHS or to public health. To make a tangible difference, we have to improve our health and our health services, but we also have to look at our society as a whole and the conditions that determine our health. This is happening in Coventry, and we have had some notable successes, despite the poor hand we have been dealt by Government. For example, we have seen an increase in the proportion of children with good development by the end of reception year, and a reduction in the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training. We have also achieved great results through employability support programmes, such as the Job Shop or Ambition Coventry, which work with people to help them secure employment.
However, if we hope to build on these successes, we need the support of Government. I hope the Minister will commit to funding public health, the NHS, local authorities and others properly, so that we can tackle the deep and entrenched health inequalities that exist in our communities and reduce the huge life expectancy gap between the richest and the poorest.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I am glad to be able to speak in this debate. Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, which I represent, have a real issue with health inequalities, and I was glad recently to ask the Prime Minister to take a look at health inequalities in dental care. That has been touched on already this afternoon in relation to children. As I have said previously in this Chamber, 60% of adults in my constituency and across Cornwall and 40% of children have not seen a dentist in the past year. It is not so much a lack of funding—the funding actually gets returned to NHS England—as a lack of dentists prepared to work in the NHS. I am glad that the Government’s amendment states that they are
“committed to level up outcomes to reduce the health gap between wealthy and deprived areas, and supports the Government’s commitment to delivering long-term improvements for everyone no matter who they are, where they live or their social circumstances.”
Dr Whitford
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that part of the problem is the dental contract, whereby dentists are not rewarded for the amount of work they do and certainly not rewarded for preventive care?
Derek Thomas
I do agree with that. I did not want to get into party politics, but the Labour party gave the 2006 dental contract to dentists, and we have seen the decline in the availability of dental care in Cornwall from that point. I understand that it cannot be reviewed for another couple of years, but I believe there is work that can be done before then to respond to the challenge, and that is what I want to raise today.
Since I last raised this issue in the House, I have been asking my constituents about their experience. I have heard about disabled people who have to consider accessibility—they cannot get in to the dentist’s and therefore cannot get an appointment. Pensioners are unable to afford private treatment, and have been left stranded without provision for years. Some were getting NHS treatment, but then practices stopped offering it, as they are unable to keep up with demand. Pregnant women do not get access to NHS dental care for the entire pregnancy, but are offered it a long time afterwards, even though it is free during a pregnancy. People have ended up travelling further and further, and I heard of constituents travelling to Bristol and London to get the dentist care they need, which cannot be good for us as we try to reduce our carbon footprint. As I have said, there is also a lack of access for children.
In the time I have, let me share some of the comments that have been made. Mike left the Royal Navy and had a three-year wait for an NHS dentist. Then he got a dentist, but appointments have been constantly cancelled, so he is not seeing a dentist. He believes that the armed forces covenant should offer dental provision. Fred said that he has been waiting five years to get a dentist in Cornwall, so he is now registered at a London dentist, even though he lives in my constituency 300 miles away.
A gentleman who worked away a lot, but his family was in Cornwall, said that he, sadly, did not visit the dentist for two years so was “removed” from the dentist’s list. He had cracked his tooth, but was not able to see a dentist, despite his wife and children still being registered and able to get an appointment. Another gentleman who had been living in Penzance for eight years had to wait two years to be placed at a dentist’s. He got a dentist, but then found that they kept cancelling, so he had not seen a dentist in three years. There is story after story of this happening.
There is light at the end of the tunnel. A lot of work was done last summer by the former MP Sarah Newton and me and other colleagues in Cornwall, and a plan was put in place. NHS England said that it would engage with the national NHS England dental workforce team to look at a more innovative way to attract dental staff to Cornwall and put forward a plan by the end of the year—that was last year. It also said:
“Work is also under way at a national level to identify solutions to the dental recruitment and retention pressures in NHS dentist services, and to understand and address the constraints of current national NHS dentist contracts”,
which has been referred to. I would like the Minister to look at what has happened to the plan Cornwall was promised at the end of last year and what is happening to the review that is going on across the county.
We are doing work locally, but it needs the commitment of Government and others. There is an irony in that we train a lot of dentists in Truro but they do not seem to stay in Cornwall so this also needs the involvement and commitment of the Peninsula dental school, as well as NHS providers and NHS England, to get a grip of this and to ensure that children and adults, particularly vulnerable adults, are no longer discriminated against and no longer face these health inequalities.
We must come together quickly and creatively to ensure that dental care provision is addressed. As we have heard, if we get it right very early in life then we save ourselves a whole host of problems later on.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
In 1980, the Black report told us that the
“causes of health inequalities are so deep rooted that only a major and wide-ranging programme of public expenditure is capable of altering the pattern.”
The report was, famously, whisked out on a bank holiday. It was massively rejected by the then new Thatcher Government as being unrealistic in its expenditure levels— typically short-sighted and we have borne the cost of that since.
The findings of the report and the consequent discussions about health inequalities, I discussed when I was at university, as quite a young person at that point. My lecturer, Professor Albert Weale, taught me a lot about health inequalities, which served me to want to seek a career in the NHS to make a difference. But the NHS contributes little if anything to reducing health inequalities, and many would argue that it in fact increases them: it makes them worse, with better-off patients finding access easier and being better able to navigate the systems—the sharp elbows. The inverse care law also applies: the best services are in the better-off areas. So I am always passionate about my career in and commitment to the NHS, but I have never deified it.
Progress was made in the last 40 years. In 1997 we, as the new Government, tried to tackle the social determinants of health, with healthy living centres, such as the one in my constituency in Knowle West, the new deal for communities, a focus on early years and families, smoking cessation, teenage pregnancies and sexual health services. We made a massive difference, but in 2011 the health inequality targets were removed. It is heartbreaking for me to see in my constituency the evidence-based work that we led in that Government destroyed by this Government, the shocking waste of human potential that has resulted, the huge personal and family and community loss, and the huge financial problem that that causes the Government in lost income and increased benefit payments.
The Treasury should be deeply concerned about the Marmot findings. The figures are stark; they continue to be stark. In report after report that I have read in my 30-odd years in the NHS and as an MP, we hear much about the north, but Bristol has neighbourhoods that are among the most deprived in the country, and the 10 most deprived neighbourhoods in Bristol are all in my constituency of Bristol South. Personal independence payment claims stand at 5,500, and those for carer’s allowance and live employment and support allowance at 4,907—all the highest in Bristol. One in 10 people of working age in Bristol South are not able to work because of health and disability reasons, and the joint strategic needs assessment also tells us that it is women who are bearing the brunt of this. Women in Bristol on average live in poor health for 22 years, which is higher than the England average. The health burden and the mortality and morbidity figures are equally stark, as Professor Marmot has highlighted.
In 40 years, we have learnt a lot, and if the Government are willing to use the learning we could have much better policy, but local government is key. Public health rooted in local authorities and using independent advice ought to be far more influential in issues around prioritising and resource allocation, overcoming the vested interests that are in the NHS.
Early intervention is key. The NHS does maternity and there is then a big gap until care of the elderly; local government has the interaction with children. The NHS focuses on individuals; local authorities focus on families and communities. NHS bodies are not co-terminus with local authorities. They have no grounding in community, but local authorities do. Resource allocation in the NHS is driven by payment by results. Local authorities are much better at aligning resources with local needs. The NHS is not directly accountable to electors, which would make it better understand communities and social care. Unless the Government support local government, everything else is platitudes.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Good health and good healthcare are clearly the basis for happiness and prosperity for individuals and communities. As we have heard, many factors impact on health: some are personal and genetic; some are life circumstances, such as deprivation; and some are about the quantity and quality of health and care provision. But when this all comes together, we have a perfect storm. That is the plight of those who live in rural communities; my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) alluded to that. Yet the 170-page Marmot report mentions the word “rural” only seven times, of which four are references to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. So what do we mean by rural? It is interesting. It is not consistently defined. The Office for National Statistics, DEFRA and the Welsh Assembly all have different definitions. They are based on sparsity and deprivation, but they do not really look at the same thing. What is worse, data is analysed at a very high level. The cut-off is 15,000 heads of population. That really is not granular enough.
Density profiles look at rural towns, villages, hamlets and so on. The way they are built up, in blocks of population of 1,500, again does not really cut it. We have bizarre situations where High Peak is deemed only 55% rural, despite being right next to a national park, yet Sevenoaks, which I always thought was a big town, is 70% rural. It is very odd indeed. So there is a huge mask in the data in terms of what really is deprivation and where the need is. Therefore, the funding that is delivered to rural communities, certainly in areas such as mine, is based on the wrong assumptions. In calculating whether my constituents need money, there is a decision: do they have cars? Yes. That means they are affluent and do not need the money—wrong.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that patient behaviour around rurality is different from those in the city? They have to make a decision when they are on their own whether to trouble the GP, to go out, to face the weather, to go to the hospital. When they really need to go, they leave it to the last minute. That creates an inequality that is not captured in the data.
Anne Marie Morris
My hon. Friend is totally right. There are some very big consequentials relating to the geography of our area and to the demographic profile. We tend to export young people and import older people. In consequence, we need more geriatricians. We do not need a lot of specialists; we need doctors who can cope with complex co-morbidities. We do not have doctors like that.
We need also more funding for primary care. Much of the funding is skewed towards accident and emergency. Why? Because that is where the measures are. We also need to look at how we overcome the infrastructure barriers. Road and rail, bad; 5G, great. But we do not have it. We ought to be a priority because that would be a real plus in trying to solve this rural problem.
We also need to train and recruit people who understand rural communities. If we do not train them in rural areas, they will not want to come and stay. Nurses working in hospitals and in social care need to be trained in a similar way and they need to be interchangeable, otherwise we cannot cope with the demand in social care. On mental health, as I think has already been mentioned, isolation and loneliness in rural areas mean that we have a very high level—I think the highest level—of suicide. We have lots of lone workers and lone livers. That is a real challenge.
The consequence of all that is that in Devon we find ourselves with some of the worst financial performance results and some of the worst results in terms of meeting targets. Why? Because we are being funded for the wrong thing in the wrong way. Nobody seems to notice that many in our community do not ever get ambulances. You try north Devon and parts of Cornwall—it is just not going to happen. The effect is that we are now in special measures. What does that do? Do we get help? Actually we get told to spend less. If that is not health inequality, I do not know what is. I hope the Minister will not tell me that people in rural areas live longer. It is not great to live longer if you are not in great health and the quality of your health really does not cut it.
This situation can change and it has to change. The Government need to accept that one size does not fit all. If the Government are willing to listen and to change, it can all happen.
I invite the Minister to come and listen to the evidence I am gathering while chairing a national inquiry into rural health and care. We are unpicking the issues. We are looking at evidence not only from across the United Kingdom, but from abroad—from New Zealand, Australia and America—of what good care looks like. We hope to provide the Minister with a toolkit for a good result. Thank you for listening.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am afraid that after the next speaker, I will have to reduce the limit to three minutes. There have been interventions, which means that other people will have less time, so I urge people to be careful about interventions.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I really must praise the two excellent speeches by the hon. Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi). I rather fancy that those two Members will make their mark in this place in the years to come.
I want to tell the tale of Mr Billy Sutherland, who was a 63-year-old commercial traveller living in Wick. A good number of years ago, Billy set off from Wick on the A9, heading south. It was a winter’s day and the weather was not too bad when he left, but as he travelled further south towards the Ord of Caithness—the boundary between Caithness and Sutherland—it turned very nasty indeed. In the end, Billy drove into a snowdrift and could not get out of his car. The snow continued and eventually he was buried, in his car, 15 foot down. There was no trace of the car to be seen.
Billy was in that car for 80 hours. Eventually, the police found him by prodding the snow, and it clanged on the roof of the car. When they dug their way down to the car, they found that Billy was, astonishingly, alive and pretty well. He was not much the worse for his ordeal. Billy was a commercial traveller in ladies tights. As it got colder in his car over the 80 hours, he simply unwrapped more pairs of tights and put them on. It is an extraordinary tale. When he returned to Wick, he received a hero’s welcome.
I tell the tale because, until quite recently we enjoyed a consultant-led maternity service based at the Caithness General Hospital in Wick, but NHS Highland, in its infinite wisdom, decided to downgrade the service. As hon. Members know, because I have mentioned it before in this place, a great number of pregnant mothers now have to travel 104 miles from Wick to Inverness—a 208-mile return trip—to give birth to their babies. The vast majority of mothers have to do that.
What if it is winter? What if the ambulance gets stuck in a snowdrift? What if the mother’s contractions have started? What if the two emergency helicopters have been summoned to one road traffic accident in Lochaber and another in Morayshire? I have said it again and again: in my considered opinion, this is a tragedy waiting to happen. I make no apologies for raising it yet again in this place.
This debate is about equality of access to decent health services. I argue that my constituents in Caithness are losing out extremely badly indeed, and it annoys me intensely. In fairness, this is a matter that is devolved to the Scottish Government. I accept that and very much hope that the Scottish Government take the problem on board, because we cannot continue waiting for something dreadful to happen. When constituents come to me in Caithness, do I sit on my hands and say, “Well, it’s not a matter for Westminster,” or do I stand up and say something here? I make no apologies, because I think I owe it to the pregnant mothers.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone).
The NHS long-term plan will be critical in tackling health inequalities. I welcome the announcement that the plan will deliver on this issue and address inequalities by working locally, specifically targeting areas of unmet need.
I am mindful that I live in and represent a constituency that has a life expectancy above the national average for men and women. However, there is an inequality within Guildford between those who live to the north of the A3 in the Westborough and Stoke wards, and those who live to the south of the A3, who can expect to live roughly five years longer than their northern neighbours.
I pay tribute to the excellent work that has been undertaken by the Guildford health and wellbeing board, which produced a report in 2017 that runs through to 2022. It was produced in partnership with the clinical commissioning groups, the local authorities and voluntary organisations, which are key to the implementation of important help and support on the ground in our community. I believe that empowering our community volunteers will be crucial in narrowing health inequalities.
The first priority outlined in that report was to support people to take responsibility for their own health and wellbeing as much as possible, and that principle must always be the starting point in tackling inequality of health outcomes. Committing to a prevention first approach is vital. If individuals are able, with support, to look at habits around smoking, alcohol consumption, food choices and exercise taken, there will be a huge impact on reducing not only physical health problems but mental health issues.
Local authorities do an excellent job of promoting their parks and recreation facilities and holiday activities for children. We expend so much energy on protecting our green spaces, so it is vital that we use them. Voluntary groups such as SMART Cranleigh are working hard in the social prescribing sphere, helping those who are socially isolated, which we know can have a detrimental effect on life expectancy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) described so eloquently. Councillors have just opened a community fridge in Park Barn in my constituency, which stocks fresh vegetables, key to a healthy diet.
There will, however, always be those who need support and medical intervention, and the Government’s commitment to deliver £33.9 billion worth of investment in the NHS will make reducing health inequalities possible. I welcome that investment and trust that, with the excellent work already undertaken in the Guildford constituency on identifying areas of need, we might qualify for targeted support to improve the quality and length of life for my constituents who need it most. I am pleased to support the Government’s amendment this evening.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
The £500 million promised by the Government for Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust provides the perfect opportunity to begin to address health inequalities in my part of south-west London. Instead, my local NHS has proposed moving services away from the most deprived areas to leafy Belmont, where life expectancy is longest. If that goes ahead, St Helier Hospital and Epsom Hospital will be downgraded, reducing two A&Es to one, with St Helier Hospital losing major A&E, acute medicine, critical care, emergency surgery, maternity services, in-patient paediatrics and child beds. That 62% reduction in beds would leave a shell of a hospital more accurately described as a walk-in centre.
Across the catchment of the trust, deprivation varies greatly. Given today’s debate, does the Minister agree that health inequalities must be at the heart of the decision on how to spend those funds? The key point is that of the 51 most deprived lower-layer super output areas in the trust’s catchment, just one is nearest to the chosen site. Meanwhile, 42 out of the 51 are nearest to St Helier Hospital. Any decision to downgrade St Helier, therefore, would exacerbate existing health inequalities. Rather than comparing deprivation by proximity to each of the three possible sites, it has been compared by CCG area, disguising the 76.5 year life expectancy of men in parts of Mitcham compared with the 84.4 year average in Wimbledon Park. The thousands of A&E attendances from the deprived areas in Croydon have been discounted, but the comparable number from prosperous Wimbledon have been included. The reality that the area of higher deprivation in the trust’s catchment area has, on average, a far higher attendance at A&E has been dismissed.
The Prime Minister’s amendment today states that the Government are committed to levelling up
“outcomes to reduce the health gap between wealthy and deprived areas”.
With just one month to go until the end of the St Helier consultation, the Government have a decision to make. Will much get yet more, or will the Government insist that vital services are left where they are most needed and any available funds are used to improve St Helier Hospital on its current site?
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
There is clear evidence that deprivation has a big impact on health and life expectancy. Preventing disease and encouraging healthy lifestyles are the key drivers in reducing poor health and early deaths in all communities, but particularly in more deprived areas. So much is known now that was not understood in previous generations about the importance of exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, stopping smoking, and eating fruit and vegetables. We may know what we need to do to give ourselves the best chance of staying healthy, but there are many barriers that prevent us from making those choices. Those barriers are far higher for people living in more deprived areas.
Low household income is a barrier to good health. If people are struggling to make ends meet, making sure that they eat their five a day and exercise three times a week a is not an urgent priority, or perhaps is even affordable. That is why the Government’s commitment to raising the national living wage is so important. However, we know that there is more to do.
A second barrier is infrastructure. For many of my constituents in the rural villages around Penistone and Stocksbridge, it can take a whole day to travel to and from a hospital appointment in Sheffield because the buses are so few and far between. The Government’s commitments to improving bus services are vital to people who rely on public transport for access to healthcare. A further barrier is lack of information. Increasingly, health and medical information is going online, so we must tackle inequalities in digital skills and access.
There is much that the Government and our fantastic NHS are doing to tackle health inequalities, but there is also an important role for our families and communities in helping people to get and stay healthy. Community groups are vital in giving people hands-on and practical health advice and helping us to move towards healthy lifestyles. In my constituency, the Oughtibridge Strideout running club has helped many of my friends from the couch to 5k—although I am afraid I am still at the couch end of that. We also have Stocksbridge leisure centre, which is run by and for the community and is pioneering social prescribing.
As human beings, we exist not in isolation but in relationship to those around us. Relationships with our family, friends and communities are so important, and they are often our first port of call when we have health concerns. Breastfeeding support is a brilliant example. There is clear evidence that being breastfed improves a person’s chances of being healthy, but—I say this from lengthy experience—breastfeeding can be tough, and new mums need support from friends, family and community to keep going. I was lucky enough to have support from fantastic community groups when I had my first child, and I could not have kept going without that.
Levelling up our left-behind areas is not just about better buses and trains; it is about investing in communities. We need to make every effort to reduce health inequalities by funding our NHS, raising incomes, improving infrastructure and helping people gain access to information, but we must also recognise the importance of family, friends and community to our health, and I therefore welcome our manifesto commitments to a programme of strengthening families and championing family hubs.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I commend the speech of the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), and also the two excellent maiden speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi).
I want to use this very short speech to promote the excellent work of the Haringey fairness commission. A number of local authorities have established fairness commissions to look into what can be done in their neighbourhoods. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who is not currently in the Chamber, spoke very well about the need for properly funded local authorities to have the key to addressing the need for high-quality early intervention, health and education services, and, of course, income. I think that if local authorities had a greater duty to stamp out the scourge of low pay, we would see a greater improvement in health. We know that 25% of people in Haringey are still not receiving the London living wage. If a quarter of our workers received that improved hourly rate, it would have a huge impact on their health.
We know from the work of the Equality Trust and a number of professors, including Professor Marmot from the Institute of Health Equity, that the problem is not just about people not having money in their pockets, but about the income gap. That applies to many of our London constituencies. Those who get on to the 41 bus at Turnpike Lane and travel west will go through areas where longevity increases by a couple of years for every mile travelled. There is currently six years’ difference between living in Turnpike Lane in the east of my constituency and living in Highgate village in the west. That is not acceptable.
This is the challenge that we face. It is not just about the fact that you do not have money in your pocket, but about the fact that the person sitting next to you may be doing very well, perhaps in owner-occupied housing and with a healthy pension, while you are still struggling to work into your 70s and also living with a chronic health condition. That is what inequality means, and I wonder sadly whether the covid-19 crisis will show just how unequal the virus will be in the victims whom it will tragically take. I fear that it will tend to be the people who are living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other chronic illnesses who lose their lives, because of our health inequalities and because our services do not match the aspirations of Members on both sides of the House.
Let me once more commend the work of the Haringey fairness commission, which is hot off the press and which everyone can read online.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
When considering how best to improve the nation’s health, including where inequalities exist, I have a natural tendency to want to go back to the very beginning and consider whether the experience of children can lead us to the answers. To that end, I want to raise the—literally—growing problem of childhood obesity. If we look at the overall statistics, we see that a third of children aged two to 15 are overweight or obese, and that 79% of children who are obese in their early teens will remain obese as adults. That puts them at risk of conditions including diabetes, asthma, cardiovascular disease, joint pain and cancer, but it also damages their life chances and can lead to psychological issues that can bear down on and impact their quality of life.
The causes are, as ever, multiple and complex: social, environmental, biological, personal and economic. Looking at the financial position of people, it is true to say that it is cheaper to fill a hungry child with doughnuts than with apples. Of course it is possible to eat healthily for less, but even here we see inequality. Research from University College London and Loughborough University in 2018 found that although childhood obesity had increased in recent decades, its rise had not affected children equally. The report concluded that
“the powerful influence of the obesogenic environment”—
that is, growing up in an environment that encourages or at least facilitates unhealthy eating—
“has disproportionately affected socioeconomically disadvantaged children”.
For example, the obesity figures for four to five-year-olds are at their highest among children from the most deprived areas, where 13.3% are obese, compared with 5.9% in more affluent areas. Although this is a long-running disparity, it is no less concerning, as these figures show. The seeds of a lifelong battle with obesity are sown at an early age, with one in five children already obese or overweight before they have even started school. Understanding the drivers and the most effective interventions is clearly going to be crucial to achieving the change that is needed.
That is why the measures that the Government have taken through the national childhood obesity plan, the Green Paper “Advancing our health: prevention in the 2020s” and the NHS long-term plan are important parts of the solution. We know that the soft drinks industry levy has been effective in reducing sugar content, with about 37.5 billion kilocalories removed from the soft drinks industry every year. We have the school food plan, and health education is now compulsory in our schools. We also have the primary PE and sport premium and the Healthy Start scheme, as well as the healthy child programme that we have heard about. All these measures are helping to tackle childhood obesity, but we know that there is a lot more to do if we are to meet our target of halving childhood obesity by 2030.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson). I would like to focus on one particular area of health inequality: the lack of access to NHS dentistry and the damaging effect that this is having on people’s health. I fundamentally believe that we cannot continue to treat dentistry as the Cinderella service of the NHS. It is underfunded, undervalued and in need of reform. There is a crisis in access to NHS dentists, and significant inequality in the availability of access. This is having an adverse effect on the health and wellbeing of our children, in particular, with tooth decay remaining the biggest cause of admission to hospital for five to nine-year-olds.
Unfortunately, there is a regional and socioeconomic divide in both the availability of NHS dentistry and in good dental health outcomes. Nearly 50% of children in the worst performing local authority area have tooth decay; in the best performing area the figure is just 4%. In Bradford, the figure is far too high at 40%. We also see wide regional inequalities of access. In Bradford, 88% of people who tried to do so got an NHS dental appointment, compared with 95% nationally.
Locally, I have had some success in campaigning for more investment in local NHS dental services. An access pilot scheme that ran in 2017 provided an extra 4,200 appointments. The scheme significantly cut waiting times for dental care in Bradford. More than half of those extra patients had not seen a dentist for more than two years. The “Stop the Rot” campaign with the Bradford Telegraph & Argus resulted in over £600,000 of clawback funding being reinvested in Bradford over three years. May I thank two former Ministers, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) and Alistair Burt, for their help with this?
Will the current Minister take the hint and please confirm that, given the proven need, this reinvestment will continue into Bradford South? However, it is clear that this is not the long-term fundamental solution that is needed. First, we need to see reform of the dental contract, which is simply not fit for purpose. Secondly, the Government must get a grip on dental recruitment, which threatens to make access even harder. Thirdly, the Government must roll out the starting well programme across the country. Currently, it is limited to a handful of wards across 13 local authorities.
Finally, the Government must commit to fully funding NHS dentistry. It is operating on a budget that has remained essentially static since 2010. The scale of oral health inequalities in this country, in particular among our children, requires significant investment. The Government need to step up, never mind level up, and stop the crisis in NHS dentistry.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins). I want to speak about autism and what the Government might do to improve outcomes and reduce health inequalities for people with autism in Peterborough and across the UK.
My interest in the subject stems from speaking directly with constituents, on the doorstep, who tell me about their experiences. I have joined the all-party parliamentary group on autism and support the National Autistic Society’s efforts to raise awareness of the condition.
Debates in Peterborough City Council chamber might not regularly excite hon. Members, but I hope that the House will indulge me just this once, because I am excited that councillors in Peterborough will tonight discuss a motion on autism tabled by the excellent Conservative councillor for Bretton, Chris Burbage. The motion will commit the council to engage with health and social care organisations, education, the police, charities, and people with autism and their families and carers, as well as with me and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), in drafting an autism strategy.
I am proud of Peterborough and proud of the charities Autism Peterborough and the Enabling Independence Service, both of which I shall soon meet. I also want to mention my constituent, Nazreen Bibi, who cemented my interest in this area. She has done wonderful work and, despite standing to be a Labour party councillor in Peterborough in 2018, knows how we can work together for better outcomes for patients.
It is worth briefly reminding hon. Members what autism is. It is a lifelong development disability that affects how people perceive the world and interact with others. Not everyone’s brain works the same way. Autistic people see, hear and feel the world differently from other people. They are autistic for life; autism is not an illness or a disease, and it cannot be cured. Often, people feel that being autistic is a fundamental aspect of their identity. Autism is much more common than most people think, with around 700,000 people in the UK having this condition.
I want to focus my remaining remarks on getting an accurate diagnosis of autism, because that helps people, and their families, partners, employers, colleagues, teachers and friends, to understand why they might experience certain difficulties. It also helps them to get access to support services.
The Autism Act 2009 is over 10 years old. We have made considerable progress since that legislation was passed, but the APPG on autism has listed a series of recommendations on how the Government might do more in this area. I am confident that this Government will rise to the challenge on autism, and I ask Ministers to consider closely the APPG report and act on the recommendations within it.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Health inequalities remain acute in Ealing, with men and women in the most deprived areas living half a decade less than those in the richest part of the borough. We have also seen insidious rises in infant mortality, tuberculosis and winter deaths. For that to happen in one of the richest countries in the world, where we have come to expect incremental improvements in health, is a tragedy and the true legacy of 10 years of Tory misrule.
Ethnic minorities suffer from serious health inequalities, particularly with regard to organ donation. Last month I met a brave young boy from my constituency called Rohan and his wonderful mother, Sonia. Rohan is 12 years old and has been on the kidney transplant waiting list since 2018. The lack of awareness and insufficient promotion of organ donation in black, Asian and minority ethnic communities holds back young people such as Rohan from reaching their full potential. I can only encourage people to come forward and opt into the system.
The Government must also follow through on their overdue tobacco control plan White Paper to help to move us towards a smoke-free Britain. We need specific recommendations on oral tobacco, which disproportionately affects BAME communities.
The Government must also reverse the harsh cuts they have made to public health spending, which have made it far harder for local councils to provide evidence-led advice, particularly on mental health, sexual health, smoking cessation and drug and alcohol services. Public health spending is a small percentage of overall health spending, but it can have a drastic impact on the lives of the most vulnerable.
The Government must address overall levels of deprivation and urgently increase the minimum wage to a real living wage. I urge them to step up to their responsibilities and to do what they have promised: level up this country.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
At the start of the debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), asked for suggestions on how we can level up the health inequalities that affect all our constituencies. Representing the people of Ramsbottom, Tottington and Bury, I think the following policy proposals would go some way towards addressing the Marmot policy objectives.
First, in Bury, we need to strengthen our mainstream provision for primary-age children with autistic spectrum conditions and for children with social, emotional and mental health needs. We need to create two bases with outreach capacity to sustain pupils in their school with extra support, giving every child the best start in life.
We need to fund a learning disability hub, which would change how people with disabilities access support across Bury. This would involve the development of an accessible hub to provide information, advice, care and support to individuals whose lives are affected by disability, enabling all children and young people to maximise their capabilities and to have control of their life.
We need to create fair employment and good work for all. Bury College has received millions of pounds of Government investment for a proposed health and life sciences hub. We are now asking for further investment to create a digital and creative industry skills hub to provide the skilled jobs that my constituents need and to upskill all my constituents, no matter what their background.
Marmot’s main policy objectives relate to public health and prevention, and I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), to consider initiating a pilot in Bury for an integrated public health hub that would put all public health services together in one place. The hub would address substance abuse, as well as dietary and all wellbeing matters. More specifically, it would encourage a healthy and active lifestyle.
In Bury, we need to encourage people to become involved in sport and activity. Sites such as Gigg Lane, the home of Bury football club, are perfect facilities to inspire youngsters who are not involved in an active lifestyle to change their ways, and to become involved in their community and in a public health world to which they have not previously been introduced. Public health services should not be in an office block; they should be in open, attractive places that encourage young people to become involved.
Those proposals would have impact on my constituents, benefiting their health outcomes and life chances.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) and to hear his suggestions on how to reduce health inequalities.
Professor Marmot’s recent review on health inequalities since 2010 has highlighted how the Government’s decade of austerity has taken its toll on aspects of people’s lives. In particular, the report highlights: rising child poverty; the closure of children’s centres; declines in education funding; zero-hours contracts; increasing insecurity in work; the housing crisis; a rise in homelessness; an increase in the number of beggars on the street; people not having enough money to lead a healthy lifestyle; and more and more people turning to food banks. If those outcomes are not bad enough, things are even worse for our minority ethnic population, and that area is my focus in this speech.
Ethnicity has not been a consistent focus of health inequalities policy; very few policies have been targeted at minority groups. Two factors affecting the action—or the lack of it—on ethnic health inequalities are the availability of data on ethnicity and the legal obligations on racial equality. For example, data on ethnicity is not collected when a death is registered, so it is not possible to calculate life expectancy estimates. Having that data on ethnic groups in our health statistics would be an important aid to researchers, who would then be able to investigate differences in health. Education for our health professionals is also most important if we want to address health inequalities and to enable those professionals to feel that practical steps can be taken to help to reduce the inequalities. For example, sickle cell disorder affects some of my diverse community in Lewisham East, but not enough research has been done on it, and not enough time has been spent on evaluating the preventive measures and how to reduce people’s risk of having a sickle cell crisis. Clearly much more needs to be done to understand the disorder and how it disproportionately affects a section of our diverse population in the UK.
Many health professionals would agree that there is a desperate requirement to increase training on sickle cell disorder, as well as diversity training in the General Medical Council, the General Pharmaceutical Council and the Nursing & Midwifery Council, in order to address these needs. The Marmot review makes one thing clear: the effects of austerity are reducing quality of life and, in some cases, they are taking life.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
It is great to see two Ministers on the Front Bench. For me, health inequalities are closely linked to the health of my local NHS trust, so I make no apologies for talking about Isle of Wight healthcare in relation to health inequalities. I do so within the framework of the unavoidably small hospitals programme, which is potentially a very interesting move by this Government. I discussed it with the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) and the Secretary of State last week. The background is as follows: 12 national hospitals qualify as unavoidably small, and the economics of those hospitals has an impact on healthcare, especially in a place such as the Isle of Wight, which has a 100% remoteness factor, because we are separated by the sea. The diseconomies of scale over a wide range of health issues affect the ability to deliver healthcare to the same standard as on the mainland. That is part of the wider issue I am looking at when seeking an Isle of Wight deal. We reckon that the additional costs of providing healthcare on the Island to the same standard as on the mainland is about £12 million. I will not go further into the details, because of a shortage of time, but I have talked to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Health about that.
What do I intend to do about this? I am going to try to secure debates on the USH programme, in the hope that the 20 or so Members concerned, mostly Conservatives but with one Opposition Member, will join in supporting me, so that we can ensure that Ministers understand the additional pressures on these hospitals.
I will also make the case to Sir Simon Stevens for looking at increased revenue for unavoidably small hospitals, especially on the Island, which has a 100% remoteness factor. We will, though, continue to drive efficiency on the Island. Our chief executive Maggie Oldham and the leadership team are looking at doing that by linking up with Portsmouth district general hospital and with Solent NHS mental health trust, and by doing other good things so that we use public money as efficiently as possible.
I would very much like recognition from the Government that there is an additional cost for unavoidably small hospitals because of diseconomies of scale. That should translate into something in terms of revenue. In addition, when it comes to helping Islanders to get patient treatment on the mainland, there are additional costs for patient travel. I will leave it there.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker:
“Good health is an indication that a society is thriving and that economic and social and cultural features of a society are working in the best interests of the population”—
not my words, but those of Michael Marmot last week. It was hard to hear his conclusions on health equity 10 years on from his 2010 report, especially for those of us in the north-east, where we have seen the biggest declines.
In the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead, which includes my constituency, the gap in life expectancy between the most deprived and least deprived areas has increased: in 2010-12 it was 8.6 years for men, but for 2016-18 it was 12 years; for women, the gap has increased from 8.8 years to 11.2 years. The gap in healthy life expectancy is even more stark: between 2009-11 and 2016-18, the gap in healthy life expectancy for women in Gateshead increased from 4.6 years to 6.2 years. Healthy life expectancy is a significant issue because it creates more pressure as people need support from the NHS and social care.
The Minister said earlier that local authorities need to and can take control of this issue; Gateshead has been doing so, as recognised by Michael Marmot. The North East Child Poverty Commission estimates that 209,272 children throughout the north-east are growing up in poverty. That is 6,224 children just in my constituency of Blaydon, or nine children in a class of 30, living in poverty. There is growing evidence that growing up in poverty has a devastating effect on children’s physical and mental wellbeing.
This morning, I attended the launch of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health report on the state of child health in 2020. During the speeches, I was struck by the president of the college saying that it was too late for him to change his life expectancy—unless he takes up smoking and drinking, which he is not going to do—so he is focusing on the need to act for children. I was also struck by one of the things that the college recommended, which was for the Government to restore the money from the £1 billion real-terms cut to the public health grant for local authorities. It also recommended that funding should increase at the same rate as that for the NHS and be allocated based on population health need.
I would have liked to talk about smoking and alcohol, but time does not permit.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Health inequality is explicitly linked to the wider inequality caused by 10 years of austerity policies. Labour’s record shows that health inequality and child poverty—they are very much linked—are not inevitable and that Governments can address them effectively, but this Government have had a decade to do that and have simply not done enough. Huge health inequalities exist in my constituency. I shall concentrate on healthy food, housing and air pollution.
Roehampton includes areas that are among the 20% most deprived areas in England, and the 10% most deprived with respect to income and housing. Health levels in Roehampton are consistently lower than those in the wider London Borough of Wandsworth. Average life expectancy is 7.4 years less for men and 5.5 years less for women in Roehampton than in Thamesfield ward at the other end of my constituency. Men in the Alton and Putney Vale area of Roehampton spend up to 6.6 years fewer in good health than the Wandsworth average and women up to 4.9 years fewer. It is a scandal.
In one area of Roehampton, people feel like they are living in a food desert. These are urban areas where it is difficult to buy affordable, good-quality fresh food. That is a poor phenomenon across the country.
Cuts to transport and just having one small supermarket in an area are really big issues. That is a matter of town planning which could be addressed by the future high streets fund. Furthermore, more funding for councils could be used to help establish fresh food shops. Community organisations could also be used.
Linked to this is the high level of overcrowding in Roehampton. The biggest reason for people coming to my surgeries since I was elected is mould. Children growing up in homes with damp and mould are prone to asthma, and are often not able to go to school. Poor housing also means less physical activity, loss of sleep and missing school, and those problems are exacerbated in temporary accommodation where, often, there is no fridge, no cooker and no space to prepare food. I call for a public health review of our temporary accommodation.
Finally, air quality is not just a public health issue, but a social justice issue. Poorer families are less likely to have a car, but also more likely to live on the most polluted streets. To tackle this, we need a legally binding commitment to meet the World Health Organisation guideline levels for fine particulate matter; a strengthened Office for Environmental Protection; and targets and funding for councils to have a modal shift towards cycling and walking. These are public health issues. Residents of Putney, Roehampton and Southfields face health inequalities, and the Government need to start listening and take action.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
I am proud to represent Enfield North, which is a key part of one of the fastest growing London boroughs and, like so many communities across London and the UK, it is a borough that is changing rapidly. The core funding Enfield Council receives from the Tory Government has been cut by an average of £800 per household since 2010, with hard-working Labour councillors having to find an extra £30 million this coming year. The impact that these swingeing, relentless cuts have had on our frontline services cannot be understated.
As I have said previously, I am pleased with the work that Enfield Council is doing to tackle health inequalities, but every single one of us across this House knows that the relentless attacks on local government have meant that its efforts provide only vital sticking plasters to the gross inequality that this Government have caused. People working in local government actually want to work with the Government to tackle the problems that we are talking about today. I pay tribute to the work of the Local Government Association in consistently raising the challenges that our councillors are facing.
The LGA rightly underlined that, when it comes to public health issues, almost every single function of local government has an impact on outcomes for local people. I wish to pay tribute to the work of Enfield Poverty and Inequality Commission for shining a light on this issue earlier this year, as part of its “All things being equal” report. The report made for difficult reading: 20,000 people living with unmet health needs; more than 15,000 people not registered with a local GP; and women living for up to 20 years in poor health. Why are we seeing damaging trends such as this? It is because injustice breeds inequality. I ask the Minister today: why is it that residents in Enfield have less than half the public health funding per head compared with other London boroughs; why is it that 30% of children across our borough live in poverty; and why is it that only two thirds of people across our borough live in good health? We have to be honest about why this situation has developed and why many of the communities that I represent remain stuck in this vicious cycle. It is because the Government have wilfully neglected the changing needs of communities such as mine over the past 10 years. The failure to give us the funding and resources that people in Enfield need and deserve have damaged people’s life chances and pushed our public health progress backwards. It is time now for a step change. It is time that the Tories invested in the health of people across Enfield North.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
This has been an excellent debate and one that I hope has been enlightening to the Government Benches especially. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed; I counted 24 Back Benchers in total. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), who made exceptional maiden speeches and will be powerful advocates for their constituents.
I highlight the other excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher), for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), for Blaydon (Liz Twist), for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), although time will not allow me to comment on them in detail.
As we have heard, “The Marmot Review 10 Years On” report confirmed what many Labour Members have been warning—that life expectancy is declining and inequalities are widening. The stalling of life expectancy is not a trend that we see worldwide. It does not have to be this way. The Nordic countries, Japan and Hong Kong all have life expectancies that are greater than ours and which continue to increase. But here in the UK, for the first time in more than 100 years, life expectancy is stalling and even declining for the poorest 10% of women. As the Marmot report says,
“if health has stopped improving it is a sign that society has stopped improving.”
There is no doubt that there is a link between austerity and stalling life expectancies. It is disgraceful that rates of premature deaths in poorer areas are twice as high as those in the more affluent areas. The Secretary of State has always said that prevention is one of his top three priorities, yet we have seen no evidence of that. The cuts to public health budgets have not been reversed. There has been no investment in children’s services, addiction services or social care, and no attempt has been made by successive Conservative Governments over the past 10 years to improve the standard of living for people living in cold and damp houses, working in unstable jobs or on zero-hours contracts, which have increased to more than 1 million people under their tenure.
The vulnerability of those on zero-hours contracts—sometimes with no rights to statutory sick pay—has come home to roost now that we are looking at a pandemic requiring two weeks of self-isolation, and possibly long periods off sick if the virus is contracted and takes hold. The same applies to the self-employed and those working in the gig economy. Although we welcome what the Prime Minister announced earlier today about scrapping the three-day wait for statutory sick pay, trying to live on £94.25 a week, which is about a quarter of the national minimum wage, will only exacerbate the existing inequalities, and could vastly compromise the nation’s attempts to contain the coronavirus if people choose to work, instead of self-isolating, due to the need to pay their bills and eat. The Government’s inaction to improve these inequalities in our society will not only continue to hurt the poorest and most vulnerable; in turn, the rest of society will also suffer. It is for those very reasons that Opposition Members believe in caring proactively for the most vulnerable. It really does benefit us all to do so.
Not doing something to make life fairer and more equal has real measurable affects. According to the Royal College of Physicians, children growing up in damp, mouldy homes are between one and a half and three times more likely to experience symptoms of asthma and other respiratory diseases than children living in dry homes. A study by the Nuffield Trust found that young people in the UK are more likely to die of asthma than in any one of the other 13 European countries studied. That is totally disgraceful, and the Government really must do something urgently to reverse this trend.
Holly Worboys died tragically at the age of 19 from an asthma attack in January 2016. She was using her inhaler sparingly to save on prescription costs. A prescription currently costs £9—a price that is just too high for many people who are living on squeezed or inadequate incomes. People should not be priced out of health. That is why we on the Labour Benches are committed to rolling out free prescriptions for everyone. Has the Minister considered this as a means to prevent illnesses worsening and early deaths?
The Marmot review confirms what we already knew: the poorer the area, the worse the health. That means that health inequalities also exist within poorer parts of otherwise wealthy areas, which we see across London often, but it also means that health inequalities exist between the north on the whole and the south— because, on the whole, the north is less affluent than the south. Sadly, it was ever thus and it is what drove me into politics in the first place, growing up in the north-east under Thatcher. The north is often a forgotten land, not least the north-east, where the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods have seen the largest decreases in life expectancy. This is in comparison with the largest increases in life expectancy in the least deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in London.
When it comes to healthy life expectancy, as we heard earlier, boys born in Blackpool in 2016-18 can expect to live 53.3 years in good health, compared with 71.9 years for those born in Richmond upon Thames, where healthy life expectancy is the highest. That is a gap of 18.6 years and that gap has widened by 4.7 years since 2009-11, when it was 13.9 years.
This is a deep injustice that the Government must address as a matter of urgency. So what are they going to do about it? The public health grant has been cut by £700 million since 2015, with the most deprived areas faring worst. Will the Government reverse the cuts to public health budgets? Will they today—not “soon”, not “in the near future”—publish the public health grant allocation for 2020-21, so that local authorities can begin budgeting for the financial year ahead, which starts next month?
The Marmot review should act as a huge warning sign for the Government. Health inequalities are widening and life expectancy is stalling and declining. Given everything that we have heard this afternoon, what urgent steps will the Government take to address health inequalities before they increase further?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I thank all Members who have taken the time to attend this debate and to speak about their experiences and their concerns.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in January:
“Every single person deserves to lead a long and healthy life, no matter who they are, where they live or their social circumstances.”
As someone who spent the first 20 years of my life in a council house in the 10th most deprived area in the country, I know more than most how important that is, and no one can concur with his sentiments more than I.
Before Professor Marmot published his report, this Government had already made clear our bold commitment to level up left-behind areas. This Government have been clear that they will address the needs of the communities that are being left behind, where too many people lose their independence through ill-health and disability. Differences in health outcomes are not new. Health inequalities have existed under successive Governments. In fact, it is worth mentioning that Marmot’s report in 2010 was equally damning of the record of the previous Administration. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) is shaking his head, but I am afraid it was. These reports are important, inasmuch as they push and inform Government policy going forward.
It is also worth mentioning, to add balance to the debate, that the ONS has published new life expectancy data, and the good news is that the latest figures show a bump up, as noted by Professor Marmot yesterday. We must, of course, take care with such information—those are provisional quarterly statistics and are subject to change—but it is good news that life expectancy figures are going up.
Differences in health outcomes are not new. Our manifesto pledged to increase years lived in good health and tackle specific problems—for example, by eradicating rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament. Those commitments came on top of an unprecedented level of investment in our NHS, with an unprecedented £2.3 billion in my area of mental health. There has also been substantial funding for our hospitals, primary care and workforce. Reducing inequalities requires action in the NHS and across Government, and prevention is a priority for this Government to support long, independent lives lived in good health.
Due to the time constraints, I will move on to answer some of the points raised by Members in no fewer than 24 speeches. I would like to commend and congratulate the Members who made their maiden speeches today. They were accomplished and excellent. I am sure that they will be a huge addition to the House, particularly in the area of health.
I would like to address the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). We will develop and publish a new UK-wide cross-Government addiction strategy, which I am sure will be good news to him. The strategy will set clear goals to reduce drug deaths and dependency on drugs and will include problem gambling for the first time.
My hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and for St Ives (Derek Thomas) and the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) raised dentistry as an example of inequality. We are committed to increasing access to NHS dentistry. Some 21.8 million adults were seen by dentists in the 24-month period ending on 31 December last year, and 7 million children were seen by dentists in the 12-month period ending in June of the same year. The issue of water fluoridation is mentioned frequently by dentists, and the Government will be looking into that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) mentioned loneliness and the importance of socialisation and social prescribing, which can have a significant impact on physical and mental health. Our loneliness strategy acknowledges that tackling loneliness is a complex and long-term challenge, requiring action on many fronts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) raised the issue of inequalities in rural villages and towns. She made her point clearly, and I am sure that it has been heard. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) spoke about prevention, and I thank her for her recognition of the Government’s investment in the NHS and our commitment to deliver on the long-term plan.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) spoke about St Helier Hospital. I am not qualified to give her a response, but her points will have been noted, and I will ensure that they go back to the Department. We will get a response to her, and I thank her for her comments.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) that the NHS is setting up a national academy for social prescribing to champion social prescribing, which I am sure many Members will be pleased to know. Social prescribing can make a huge difference for people who are suffering from loneliness or other issues, so that they come together in the community.
I would like to conclude by thanking Members on both sides of the House. I would also like to thank Professor Sir Michael Marmot for his report on health inequalities. His dedicated work has shone a light on this important issue, not just now but back in 2010. This debate has demonstrated that this Government are facing up to the challenges and taking bold action to meet those challenges. We have invested over £16 million in public health over a five-year period, in addition to NHS spending on our world-leading NHS. We are making sure that—
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 24 February, during my speech in the Adjournment debate on the deaths of social security claimants since 2014, I incorrectly stated that Daniella Obeng had taken her own life. I would like to correct the record. In fact, Daniella died from bronchopneumonia. She also had a brain tumour that resulted in multiple epileptic fits.
Daniella’s family told me that she was a talented singer with a caring, supportive boyfriend and a wonderful 13-year-old son. After her social security support was stopped in 2016, she struggled to work because of her health conditions. Daniella managed to get a singing contract in Qatar for six months, but after just six days was found dead in her bedroom. The guitarist who was supporting her said that she was having fits during her performances and went to bed to recover. Unfortunately, she never woke up.
I offer my sincere condolences to Daniella’s family. She sounds an absolutely amazing woman.
Funding for flood defences in Prestolee, Bolton
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
This afternoon there was a debate on the floods, in which I requested £5 million for flood defences for my constituency. In addition, the residents of my constituency have prepared a petition to the House of Commons.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Riverside Drive in Prestolee, Bolton, suffered a serious flood on 26 December 2015, and a second serious flood on 9 February 2020. Both of these floods cause significant loss of property. Residents’ personal belongings have been destroyed, and their homes and vehicles have been wrecked, causing absolute misery and distress as well as financial hardship. Significant distress was caused to residents at time of the floods, and many have suffered ongoing anxiety, leading to wider issues of mental health. Following the first flood, the Environment Agency propose the construction of flood defences to prevent a recurrence of the devastation. However, the Government has not yet provided the funding required and 5 years after the first flood, no flood defences have yet been installed. With the ever increasing impact of climate change and increasing rainfall, the problem of flooding in this area will not go away and will only get worse. Flood defences are urgently needed to prevent further loss of property and risk to life.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to provide the full funding required for installing flood defences at Prestolee as a matter of urgency.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002562]
Children in the Care System: Sibling Contact
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for allowing me time tonight to speak on behalf of the thousands of children in care who are separated from their siblings and the thousands of care experienced adults who had to, and still do, endure this pain.
The relationships that adults deem to be the most important for children in care are not the same as those that are most important to children in care themselves. Government guidance acknowledges that maintaining contact with siblings is reported by children to be one of their highest priorities. Having that relationship ripped away causes them anguish on many levels. An Ofsted study showed that 86% of children in care thought it was important to keep siblings together and that three quarters thought councils should help children to keep in touch with their siblings. Yet shamefully, sibling contact levels in the care system remain woeful.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady has brought a very important issue to the House for consideration, and it affects my constituents as well. Does she agree with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which says:
“Sustained contact with siblings can promote emotional stability and wellbeing for children in care. Siblings share an identity, which can promote their self-esteem and provide emotional support while going through care proceedings”?
That is an opinion that should be lent weight, and we must do all we can to provide siblings with a legal right to contact where there has been no accusation of abuse or any other extenuating safety issue.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and those comments echo the legislative changes that I will propose later in my speech.
Recent research undertaken by the Centre for Social Justice suggests that more than 70% of looked-after children with a sibling in care are separated from that brother or sister, which is not surprising when the average number of sibling foster carers is one per local authority and some have none at all. For those being cared for in children’s homes, the number of children separated from their siblings is a staggering 95%. It is also worth noting that we do not know the true scale of that heartache, because the Government do not think it is important enough to record and gather data on how many siblings are not in contact with each other in the care system.
Considering that the Government’s misguided, ideological austerity agenda has led to them presiding over a record 78,150 children in care, a shortage of foster and residential placements and less overall capacity in the social care sector, it is likely that the real picture is far worse. It is against that backdrop that sibling contact is so important.
The groundbreaking Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to allow a looked-after child reasonable contact with their parents, but there is no parity of provision for a looked-after child’s contact with their siblings. If siblings cannot be placed together, they should have exactly the same rights to contact defined in primary legislation as they do with their parents.
Many siblings who come from neglectful or abusive backgrounds state that the only constant positive, reassuring and enduring relationship they have is with their siblings. After all, they have a shared experience together. No matter how horrific, those experiences are ones that only they will ever truly know about. Often for younger siblings their protector—the one and only person who has ever kept them safe—is their sibling. While it is not appropriate that an elder sibling should take on that role, it is a fact that they often do. Separating siblings in those circumstances can have consequences for placement stability and create an anxiety for both the younger and the elder sibling. If all they have both ever known is adults who cause them harm, those initial days in placement until they feel safe with their new carers are the most precarious. In that context, it is only right that sibling contact is given the same prominence as parental contact. It cannot be right that our primary legislation gives more weight to a child’s contact with those who may have, or who have, caused them significant harm than it does to contact with their siblings, who are totally blameless.
I vividly remember and will have etched on my brain forever—although I wish I did not—the times when, as a practising social worker, I removed children from their family homes. A promise I gave to them, and to all the children I worked with, was that if I ever made it to this place I would not let them down, and that is what leads me to this debate tonight.
Removing children from home is one of the most traumatic and heartbreaking experiences. It can be emotional overload for professionals, let alone the family. There is often a police presence, violence, tears and utter confusion. Once calm and away from their home, you are left with children alone in your car, having to explain to them by some roadside that not only are they going to be living somewhere else for an open-ended period, but they are also going to be separated from their siblings. That is the most painful part of all: no matter how you explain the situation, children often feel that it is the end not only of their family relationships but of their relationship with their siblings. With each one of the children you drop off at their respective placements, you see a muted relief that they are safe, but a deep sadness that they are alone. The wheels of social services then spin into action. Solicitors for the parents and the courts demand contact as enshrined in legislation for parents. It is done with urgency, but in a resource-poor environment, what has to be done is often what is done first. Guidance that recognises the importance of maintaining contact with siblings takes a back seat and is deemed a lesser priority.
Of course, some children will see their siblings at their parental contact, but that will often be only three or four times a week for one hour. Sibling contact tends to be rare, and at times may be only monthly, for one hour. At the end of the care proceedings children may be reunited with their parents at home or placed for permanence with their siblings, but the complications that a lack of previous consistent contact can bring to those new arrangements may have implications for placement breakdowns and dire consequences for the wellbeing of the entire family.
I am sure the Minister will remind us that Government guidance recognises the importance of maintaining contact between siblings when they are in separate placements, but we all know that guidance is no substitute for a clear duty. If the Government really valued and understood sibling relationships, they would allow their voices to be heard loud and clear with the full force of primary legislation. By simply amending section 34 and schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 to include siblings and half-siblings, they would ensure that upsetting, harmful and costly cases could be avoided.
In one such case, five siblings had been in a placement together for five years. The fostering team agreed to move them to another authority with their carers, but then ripped the children’s worlds apart just before the move, advising them that they would be split up and that two of the siblings would go to a new placement. An advocacy service acting for the children took the case to court. The judge deemed that there was a case for judicial review, as article 8 of the European convention on human rights had been breached. The local authority eventually compensated the children, but they were never reunited, and spent the rest of their childhoods not only apart from each other but with zero contact. Two of the children never settled, and suffered immense feelings of loss not just for their siblings but for their former carers. How any Minister cannot grasp the opportunity to stop such utter destruction of children’s lives is staggering.
Throughout the passage of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, the then Minister, now the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson), said that the Government harboured concerns that the changes that I was proposing—along with a plethora of experts and organisations—would not provide the flexibility for a case-by-case consideration of contact, but of course they would. The welfare checklist and other safeguards to ensure that parental contact is in the child’s best interest would apply in the same way to siblings. The Minister also promised that the Government would look at the anomaly in the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010, which do not provide for contact with siblings who are not looked after. Three years on, however, no changes have been made.
In the year in which we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Children Act and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, amid continued criticism of the Government’s appalling record in respect of our most vulnerable children, the new Minister could prove that the Government care about children and are ready to break away from the damaging trajectory they have been on for the last 10 years. She could commit herself to enacting one small yet profoundly important and significant legislative change. I just hope that in her response to my speech she will not let me down, but, more importantly, I hope that she will not let down the thousands of children who are currently having zero contact with their siblings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on securing this important debate. She is always a strong advocate for vulnerable children and young people, and has great experience in this area.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the important topic of sibling contact for children in care. As the new Children and Families Minister, I want to thank foster parents, social workers, children’s services, and all those who dedicate their time, effort and skills to improving the lives of those children. I also thank the children themselves. I am committed to ensuring that all looked-after children benefit from the care and support to which every child is entitled. It is an important responsibility to ensure that vulnerable children are kept safe and are able to flourish.
The Government are implementing a wide range of reforms designed to improve outcomes. We will be taking forward a bold and broad review of the social care system, with the aim of better supporting, protecting and improving the outcomes of children and young people and their families. For the majority of looked-after children, maintaining family links through contact with parents, siblings, relatives and other connected people is extremely important. Contact can be crucial in helping them to develop their sense of identity, promote self-esteem and provide emotional support. Keeping in touch is consistently one of the most important issues that children and young people themselves raise, and I am really grateful to have the opportunity to discuss this today.
Each child’s needs, wishes and welfare must be considered when making decisions about their care. For many children, having contact with family, friends and others is hugely valued, and can help to support a stable and successful placement. That is why plans for promoting and maintaining contact must be included in every child’s care plan. By statute, a care plan must set out arrangements for the promotion and maintenance of contact with brothers and sisters, whether they are also in care or not, as long as this is consistent with the child’s welfare. The type of contact a young person has with their siblings needs careful consideration and planning, and should always be determined by what is best for the children concerned. Contact arrangements must be reviewed regularly, including by gathering and acting on the wishes and feelings of each individual child. However, while contact with siblings can be hugely valuable, it might not be the right decision in every case. Relationships are often complex and involve a range of emotions and potential risks.
The legal framework is clear on allowing contact between siblings and placing them together where it in their best interests. Historically, there have been concerns that some contact arrangements were not made on the assumption that contact should always take place.[Official Report, 16 March 2020, Vol. 673, c. 6MC.]
Mrs Lewell-Buck
On that point, could the Minister please advise me where that is to be found in primary legislation?
Vicky Ford
I shall come to the specifics just now.
This was why the Children and Families Act 2014 emphasised that contact should not directly undermine the welfare and safeguarding of children in care. Schedule 2 to the Act requires that local authorities promote contact between a looked-after child and any relative, friend or other person connected with the child as long as this is consistent with the child’s welfare and is reasonably practical. That includes siblings. Section 34(2) enables a court to make a contact order between a child in care and any named person. This may of course include—
Vicky Ford
Just let me finish this sentence, if I may, as it will bring me to what I think the hon. Member wants me to say about what we are going to do next.
Section 34(2) enables a court to make a contact order between a child in care and any named person. This may of course include any siblings, whether or not they are also in the care system. As the hon. Member rightly said, during the passage of the Children and Social Work Bill in 2017, we committed to updating the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010. This would make explicit reference to contact with siblings who are not looked after, as well as those who are. We have begun an internal review of the regulations, and I am pleased to confirm to her, within my first few weeks in this job, that we intend to update the regulations before the end of this year, alongside implementing the Government’s response to the current consultation on unregulated provision.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for that, but with all due respect, will she please confirm that sibling contact is not mentioned anywhere in primary legislation? That is the point of this debate.
Vicky Ford
I would like to confirm that it refers to any relative, which can include any siblings, but I take the hon. Lady’s point and I will look at it. As I said, will be updating the regulations.
Ultimately, all contact decisions should be based on each child’s individual circumstances. The current legislation provides for flexibility for decisions to be made case by case, and we have committed to revising the statutory guidance on fostering to ensure that it is clear, straight- forward and focused on the importance of the child’s voice. This will emphasise the need for relationships outside immediate placements to provide young people with a sense of belonging that lasts into adulthood. Those revisions will need to be undertaken in consultation with children, foster parents and other stakeholders. We will set out a timetable for that in due course.
The role of the independent reviewing officer is key to making sure that, where appropriate, sibling contact takes place. They must check that the child is happy with their contact with siblings, and that the frequency and quality of contact are right for them.
We know that the quality and consistency of IRO services remains variable, and we are working to promote a coherent strategy for improvement. We have formed a new steering group with the national IRO organisations and key national partners. Furthermore, there is a specific requirement for the care plan to set out arrangements for the promotion and maintenance of contact with brothers and sisters, as far as is consistent with the child’s welfare. That is in paragraphs 3(1) and 3(4) of schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 care planning guidance.
Regarding advocacy, which the hon. Lady mentioned, all children must have access to an advocate to help them express their feelings and to ensure that their views are taken into account. This especially includes their views on sibling contact. We have committed to improve the awareness of and access to advocacy services for children and young people.
On Monday evening, I was delighted to announce that the Government will take this commitment forward through consultation later this year on a revised and fully updated version of the national standards for advocacy for children. We have also confirmed that we will extend the advocacy “safety net” service, Always Heard, run by Coram Voice, for another 12 months.
Foster parents play a crucial role in supporting the children in their care to stay in touch with the people who matter to them. We know that it often falls to carers to facilitate contact between children and their families, and that this can be challenging. In 2018, the Government published “Fostering Better Outcomes”, which sets out our vision for the foster care system in England. Through “Fostering Better Outcomes”, we urged social workers to talk to children about what is important to them, including former foster parents and foster siblings. We called for this contact to be encouraged and facilitated if it is what is best for that child.
Foster parents are often best placed to understand the child and their needs, so it is essential that they are included in the decision-making process and properly supported to manage contact arrangements. We want to understand where this partnership working is working well, how we can share good practice and how to ensure that foster carers are always an integral part of placement planning. Therefore, we will launch a network of fostering trailblazers this year. That will initially focus on support for foster carers, ensuring that they are empowered to have input into decisions for the children in their care, including on supporting children through contact.
I also want to put on record my support for the Fostering Network’s campaign, Keep Connected, which promotes maintaining relationships for children and young people through and beyond periods of transition.
Maintaining relationships and contact with siblings, family or other trusted individuals can help to give children the stability they need to develop. We want children to experience stable care placements and the consistency of relationships, and for them to keep in touch with the people who are most important to them.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The Minister is generous in giving way again.
What checks do the Government carry out on how many children and young people in the care system actually have contact with the siblings they are separated from?
Vicky Ford
As the hon. Lady has said, the Government do not have statistics on that, but we are looking at reviewing the regulations and, as I have just said, sharing better practice.
We want children to experience stable care placements and consistent relationships, and we want them to be able to keep in touch with the people who are most important to them. We need to equip social workers with the skills and knowledge to make effective decisions on permanence and the importance of relationships. That is one reason why we have funded the development of continuous professional development resources focused on permanence, and this material is now available to the sector.
Enduring relationships are often what gives us the resilience that we all need when things go wrong, so the importance of maintaining contact with siblings and other trusted individuals cannot be overestimated—I understand that. Contact with siblings is the right thing to do when it is in the best interests of an individual child.
This is the first time I have spoken in a debate as a Minister, so let me reassure the House that I am committed to securing the best possible outcomes for children and young people in care. I look forward to working across the Floor with Members who have such experience to make sure that these children are happy, and are able to have happy, stable and fulfilling lives.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Adams
France, Germany and the United Kingdom have expressed their full solidarity with those impacted by covid-19 in Iran. We are offering Iran a comprehensive package of both material and financial support to stem the rapid spread of the disease. Today, a plane departed the UK with vital materials, such as equipment for laboratory tests, as well as other equipment including protective body suits and gloves.
[Official Report, 2 March 2020, Vol. 672, c. 636.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Asia:
An error has been identified in my statement in response to the urgent question.
The correction information should have been:
Nigel Adams
France, Germany and the United Kingdom have expressed their full solidarity with those impacted by covid-19 in Iran. We are offering Iran a comprehensive package of both material and financial support to stem the rapid spread of the disease. Today, a plane departed with vital materials, such as equipment for laboratory tests, as well as other equipment including protective body suits and gloves.
Westminster Hall
(4 years, 8 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
Huawei and 5G
(4 years, 8 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
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the security implications of including Huawei in 5G.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I am pleased to see so that many right hon. and hon. Members want to speak, so I will be as brief as possible.
The Government’s decision to go ahead with Huawei in the 5G network in the UK—it is clear from the evidence—has angered our allies and perplexed many of us who see this as an avoidable risk. In the rush—I believe it is a rush—to go ahead with the 5G system for the UK using Huawei’s products extensively, the UK Government have brushed aside the concerns of all our most important allies and the people we generally rely on. There is an overwhelming body of evidence indicating that Huawei is an untrusted vendor, which should not be given any further opportunity of access to our most vital communication networks.
The decision of the UK Government leaves us, at the moment, utterly friendless among our allies. After all, Huawei is effectively a state-owned corporation in the People’s Republic of China under the Communist party. Huawei Technologies is 99%-owned by Huawei Investment & Holding, which in turn is completely owned by Huawei Investment & Holding’s trade union committee. According to Chinese law, trade union committees are classified as public or mass organisations, which do not have shareholders, as they are recognised under Chinese law as legal persons or entities in their own right. An example of a public organisation would be the Communist Youth League.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The relationship between Huawei and the state is the same as the Communist Youth League to the state. Therefore, is it not baffling that the Government continue to argue that Huawei is a private company, given that, by the western definition, that cannot be said in any meaningful sense?
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I was on a radio programme a couple of weeks ago with a director of Huawei in this country, who happens to be a former permanent secretary. I was surprised to hear him describe Huawei as being rather like John Lewis, in that it was owned by its employees, and that we had all got this wrong. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an absurd characterisation of Huawei?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is either absurd or I will have to review my purchase from John Lewis. My socks might even be bugged! My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I want to make this point, which often goes missing in this debate. Huawei is also seen as a national security threat. It continues to deal extensively with Iran without full public knowledge of how; it built a mobile network for North Korea; and it is providing security surveillance and censoring systems to authoritarian regimes, not least the Chinese Government.
It has long been documented that Huawei has a long and intimate history with the Chinese security services, and there are issues around the security systems that have been provided for them, which are now being used, I think, to supress the Uyghur people. I have real concerns about that.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I want to bring to the right hon. Gentleman’s attention a recently published report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, “Uyghurs for sale”, which reports a horrific programme of exporting Uyghurs from Xinjiang to other parts of China. According to the report, Huawei is one of the companies that has benefited as a consequence.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
That is shocking. If true, it is an absolute indictment. The British Government and other western Governments must speak up more about this and say that what is going on there is simply intolerable. If that were any other Government, it would be shocking. It is time that we call it what it is.
If all that is not enough to make one concerned—it should be—I hope that the UK Government, my Government, have noticed the following:
“A superseding indictment was returned yesterday in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, charging Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (Huawei), the world’s largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer, and two U.S. subsidiaries with conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act”.
That is a very serious charge, which was made a matter of weeks ago, yet the UK Government announced that although they recognise Huawei as an untrusted provider, we would not stop network providers using Huawei equipment in the new 5G system. Instead of banning them, as our allies have done, we would place limits on the locations and the extent to which Huawei products may be deployed in our 5G network, to reduce Huawei’s involvement over time to the figure of 35%.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that by conceding that there is a problem and that it must be limited to 35%, the Government are admitting that the only safe option is to go to 0%? We have infuriated the Americans and our other allies in the Five Eyes. We know the Foreign Secretary had a bad time in Australia. Should we not have a concerted programme now with the Five Eyes allies to get to 0% over a short period of time?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I completely agree. I think the figure of 35% has been plucked from thin air. I will come on to the reasons why it does not work. Imagine that in 1939 we had been developing our radar systems and decided to have one of the Nazi companies in Germany directly involved. Oh, but we reduced their involvement to 35%, so they only controlled 35%. I wonder how ridiculous that would have seemed.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I am not an expert in this field, but as the technology catches up, the Government intend to reinject our technology into 5G. I assume that once the Chinese are in there, we will never get them out.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
That is the point. Each time, we are told that they will reduce, but, in fact, we get more and more addicted to them and are unable to change.
When the Government announced the figure of 35%, they made the point that the plan to exclude Huawei products from the core of the 5G infrastructure meant that we would solve the problem by restricting them only to the edge, as it was described. This position critically rests on the assumption that the core cannot be compromised from the edge. Most cyber experts whom I have spoken to know that this is an unsafe assumption, because they know that the whole 5G network can be attacked starting from the compromised edge, given the nature of change to the technological capability of the edge.
The edge components can be compromised. Indeed, there is some evidence that such attacks have already taken place on a limited scale elsewhere. For example, a hostile adversary might disable our 5G network by simply shutting down our antennas and/or routers at the edge by remotely activating the malware already buried inside many of those processors. Those embedded in the edge will have kill switches, which are currently nigh on impossible to detect and, therefore, to mitigate.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. One facet of living in a free country is that we are free to make our own mistakes. This is the first big mistake that we have made. As a former Armed Forces Minister, I want to reinforce everything he has said. Given what I learned when I was in office, the idea that we can keep them securely on the edge is complete and utter nonsense.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I agree with my right hon. Friend and he will see that in the course of my remarks I will point out that we—alone, it appears—are taking an enormous gamble.
The second reason the Government prayed in aid of their decision on 5G was the fact that it offered three main benefits: faster data transmission rates, shorter delays and increased network capacity. While faster data transmission rates can improve user experience—there is no doubt about that—for most people, 5G will not significantly impact their experience. Tasks such as viewing a movie will not be perceptibly different from 4G. In any case, the data speeds offered by 5G—100 megabits per second to 1000 megabits per second—are in the range offered by more conventional superfast fibre broadband. In many cases, the desired performance can and should be achieved by other means. Completing the roll-out of superfast fibre broadband, which my Government have constantly promised to complete to the level it should be at, is the No. 1 priority. Further, that will affect the ability of 5G to operate.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
This comes down to a rather taxing conundrum. On the one hand, we have the intense concern of our Five Eyes partners about potentially allowing China into our security and societal networks; on the other hand, there is the economic opportunity cost of excluding Huawei from 5G. In the final analysis, does my right hon. Friend agree that security and democracy trump economics in all circumstances?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right; at the end of it all, our point is that defence of the realm comes first.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a really first-class speech. Of course, the argument about 5G or 4G is rather esoteric in parts of my constituency, because far too many of my constituents have zero G; I will just put that on the record. However, when we buy the box of tricks from the Chinese, if I can call it that, is there not also an issue, in that we are losing something here? That is because in this country we must maintain our skills in all of this stuff, and I believe that in going down this route we are going down a very dangerous road indeed in that regard.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I will come back to that point in a short while.
Although the Government claim that 5G will increase network capacity, there are concerns about the proliferation of the connected internet of things—the IOT devices—and a dramatic increase in self-driving cars with next-generation telematics. That is the key point.
There may be response-time critical benefits—in fact, there certainly are—in future with 5G, such as how self-driving cars share safety-critical information with one another. However, these applications overwhelmingly lie in the future and importantly will rely on a wider set of technological changes and significant changes in social attitudes; we must bear that in mind. This pressure that we can do things tomorrow, or within a few years, will somehow be another one of those gains that are used to leverage the idea that we have to make this development.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes the very important point that if 5G is the technology of the future, it will drive many things that people use on a daily basis. Does he agree that we should not accept critical infrastructure for this country to be built by companies that we have no trust in and about which there are serious security concerns, and that if we do not have the capacity to build that 5G system now, we should build coalitions of companies that can work together and be credible alternative providers of this important technology?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and prompts the question: who has been asleep on their watch? That goes right back to the time when the Labour party was in government and was not even told by civil servants that they had made the decision to approve the involvement of 5G. Saying that is not to blame Ministers; it was the fault originally of civil servants.
Even if the Government disagree about the urgent need for such developments or disagree with my argument about this issue, surely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said, security is a greater priority. Government policy must consider the wisdom of proceeding to deploy vast numbers of IOT sensors in our environment, offices and homes, unless and until current legitimate security concerns about this issue have been laid to rest.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing this extremely important debate. First, may I say that it is quite clear in this Chamber that there is bipartisan support for his position, as indeed there is in the United States among Republicans and Democrats on this issue, and as indeed there is in Australia with the Australian Liberal Government and the Australian Labour party on this issue? Therefore, one must ask: why are the Government pursuing this course? I ask that because the right hon. Gentleman is slightly in danger of accepting the argument that somehow Huawei is light years ahead of other companies in this field. It is probably a few months ahead, given the nature of this industry, which is always changing rapidly, and companies such as Ericsson, Nokia and Samsung are clearly developing, too. What those companies really need are orders, which are what Huawei has had from the Chinese Government, to pull through their development.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful, as ever, to the right hon. Gentleman, who is in danger of making my speech before I do, because I am coming on to those points. He will find that we not do not just have cross-party support; we are absolutely linked in our concern about Huawei.
I will come back to this point later, but I am afraid that a lot of this issue is about the way in which the establishment at the moment in the UK has somehow found itself locked into this Huawei process, and we need to break it free; it is like getting somebody free of an addiction to heroin. We need to put it into rehabilitation, which is the point of my speech at the moment.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is making the case that security is paramount. Does he agree that there is also a commercial argument, in that the Government are going to reward Huawei, which has bought its way into the system? Its first tenders in the 3G and 4G networks were at a quarter of the costs of its commercial competitors in Europe and North America. We should not reward people who are basically trying to bankrupt our industry.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This relates to my earlier comment about the linkage with the Government. I will come back to Huawei’s ability to draw on support finance—which we might call Government support.
I am aware that you want me to make progress, Mr Paisely, so I shall. I will also ask others to restrain themselves slightly, although I will not refuse interventions. That will not win me points from you, Mr Paisley, but I will not defy my colleagues.
Perhaps most bizarrely, I think that the rush by the Government is being driven by the fear that we will be left behind by others. It is worth tackling that point. I find it difficult to comprehend their position, given that a growing number of leading western nations, many of them our competitors in many fields, intend not to use Huawei—in fact, they will depart completely from Huawei, even if that means a delay—or any other untrusted vendors. Surely, therefore, it is inevitable that the worldwide roll-out of 5G must slow down. Given that so many nations are saying no to Huawei, this should be an opportunity for us to prioritise national security over the breakneck speed with which the deployment of 5G is being pressed on us.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I, too, praise my right hon. Friend for making a very strong speech. Does he agree that the two successful roll-outs of 5G so far have been carried out in South Korea and Japan—by Samsung and Fujitsu respectively—and neither of them seems to have included Huawei?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Yes, I agree. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In fact, I have read a note from Samsung declaring that it is completely feasible to do this work without any involvement from Huawei. Indeed, Samsung made very clear its belief that Huawei is a direct threat to our national security because its system is not a trusted one.
Far from Huawei having some insurmountable technological lead, it seems, when one starts to investigate, that the quality of its work is no better than anybody else’s, and in some cases somewhat worse. I recall even Dr Ian Levy, the technical director of GCHQ’s National Cyber Security Centre, saying about a year ago that Huawei’s security was “very, very shoddy”. He also said that
“it’s engineering like it’s back in the year 2000”.
We need to take stock of this nonsense propaganda that Huawei is light years ahead as an organisation. Yes, it has a lot of people in research and development, but the reality is that its development has been about money.
The Government say that telecommunications companies are all reliant on Huawei. It was said earlier in the debate that telcos are absolutely reliant on Huawei, so delay would leave them significantly out of pocket. According to that line of argument, however, I would argue that reducing Huawei’s involvement to even 35% would leave telcos out of pocket, so we are already halfway there, as it were. It seems daft to try to make that argument.
Of course, the reliance on Huawei comes as a result of it having constantly bid well below other market competitors for UK and other business. After all, there is a long history of the China Development Bank providing low-cost financing for Huawei customers, and that approach is updated every few years. A recent report estimates that, when one takes in tax breaks, grants and low-cost land acquisitions, the subsidy comes to more than $75 billion. No western company in this sector will be able to compete on those grounds.
Despite all that, it is not common knowledge that at least one very significant UK service provider has contacted me to say that it has already made clear that it will not use Huawei in its 5G network. O2 suggests that the idea that these systems cannot be created without Huawei—my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) mentioned this earlier—is complete and utter nonsense.
The NCSC’s guidance does not even mention services. I understand that Huawei is now taking over the managed services for another operator, Three, which opens up yet another huge area to gather information from. If someone has a map of a radio network, they will also have a map of everything connected to that radio network. They will know what each piece is, what it does and how to attack it.
Yet our dependence on Huawei goes even deeper—much deeper than many people realise. I have just noticed that Huawei is present in the emergency services network, which is often referred to as the blue lamp or blue light service. The service is part of our critical national infrastructure, but the issue did not come out in the statements. I am astonished that that would be allowed. We can imagine how dangerous any form of disruption would be to that service. It beggars belief. Then I discovered that MI5 uses a systems provider that is heavily dependent on Huawei equipment. These decisions are barking mad.
John Spellar
The right hon. Gentleman mentions Three. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who is much more technically proficient, has looked that up for me. Three is owned by a company in Hong Kong.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The point I am making is that the systems and everything else that is being used are making things very vulnerable. The right hon. Gentleman makes my point exactly.
I am worried about the Government mobile system, which I understand the Government are working on. As usual for the civil service, it has some ghastly acronym. It is called gomo for short, which rather describes the process that we have been going through so far with Huawei. The Government have decreed that it will be one supplier only. It stands to reason that unless the Government block untrusted providers from the system, we will likely be handing over control of yet another vital and sensitive system to the organisation under discussion. That is a big question for the Government. Will they ensure that when that contract is let, the supplier will not have any input from untrusted providers such as Huawei? The Minister needs to answer that question.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I do not think John Lewis is in the market, but we can check that. I have not been there for any telecommunications.
I say to my colleagues and to you, Mr Paisley, that the situation is an utter mess at the moment.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I have been listening carefully to my right hon. Friend’s brilliant speech. As far as I can see, so far he has knocked down the Government’s arguments on technical grounds, diplomatic grounds, security grounds, practical grounds, commercial grounds and public safety grounds. After listening to his speech, there are no grounds on which to accept Huawei involvement in our national infrastructure. Can it be, therefore, that the Government’s only argument for accepting Huawei’s involvement is fear of China’s economic and geostrategic power? Giving in to that may be expedient, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be geostrategically wrong to kowtow to the Chinese Government?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
My right hon. Friend is right. He also comes to a point that I will make shortly. My concern is that there are other logical reasons in play, which I want to talk about in a second.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I will give way one last time. I am aware of Mr Paisley’s guidance.
Richard Drax
I am so grateful. This is my second intervention, and then I will sit down and shut up. On the list that my right hon. Friend just gave, one thing he did not mention was trade. As the UK leaves the EU, we desperately seek our friends and allies to make a good trade deal. As I understand it, the US is now thinking not to sign up to a trade deal if 5G is linked to any part of it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
There is no question that the US Administration are very exercised by the UK’s decision to go ahead with 5G and Huawei. In fact, I cannot think of any other time when we have been so separated from most of our allies that we respect. The thing I cannot get is that even Vietnam, for God’s sake—a communist country next door to China—will not have Huawei in their systems.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Indeed. We are all neighbours in the global environment, as the dreadful coronavirus shows us.
The problem is compounded—this is not really spoken of in these debates, and the Government never make any mention of this—is a deeper and further problem. It exposes the degree to which western Governments, including our Government, to a degree—I am talking about successive Governments; this is not a shot at my Government, as the issue goes back further than that—have taken their eye off the ball. Much of the available equipment, including electronic sub-assemblies, is of unknown security provenance. At present, beyond existing contracted functions, we have little to no idea what else lies in our installed systems. UK Governments and others—I particularly want to focus on my Government—have done little to tackle the problem. Understanding what is inside the chips and processors is critical. Any malware needs to be detected. Surely, after all these years, we could have worked to ensure as much as possible that products deployed into secure or critical national infrastructure are auditable, so that we understand what is in them. What better way to do that than by collaboration with our Five Eyes allies, to ensure that we drive security much deeper? Nothing has happened, however.
We are in a mess, and the only way to get out of it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) said, is to ensure that Huawei’s involvement is reduced from the Government’s present position of 35% down to 0%. I recognise that may take a little time, but that should be the purpose of the Government over the next two years.
Successive British Governments—this is the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) made—have tried to get close to China in the hope that we can take advantage of their markets. I recognise that that is not unreasonable, but in so doing, we seem to be playing a dangerous game. After all, this totalitarian regime is not an ally of ours, and we get confused about that at times, even if the Foreign Office is reluctant to admit that China poses a threat to us, for fear of upsetting the Chinese Government. That threat is not just in its cyber-attacks on our systems, but also in the way in which it does not obey the international rules-based order in trade. That point has been made today. By the way, no other country does a level of business proportionate to its population as much as Australia does with China. Australia is not frightened of saying no to the procedure, and I do not see anybody trying to beat it up on trade. Sometimes I wonder if we do not project the sense of power or force that we should.
As the UK leaves the EU, we should avoid kowtowing, as my right hon. Friend so rightly said—that wonderful Chinese act of placing one’s forehead on the ground in front of one’s respected superior—to China or anyone else. The British Government should commit to reducing and eradicating our dependence on Huawei, in line with our allies. That is really important. After all, defence of the realm is surely our first priority, and that goes for cyber-space as well. If defence of the realm is our first priority, what the Government are proposing today is not defence of the realm, but semi-defence of the realm, and that simply will not do.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
We have had a 26 minute-speech or thereabouts and 15 interventions, some very substantial, which have maybe taken the ardour out of some people already. I have 11 speakers to get in, including the Front-Bench spokespersons for the Government and the Opposition parties. I will therefore be time-limiting Members to four minutes, to allow all the speakers on my official list to speak. However, if they take interventions, that could be reduced or may knock a speaker out.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I associate myself with much of what the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has said. Much of Britain’s security future is not invested in weapons or armies, but in communications. The decision to allow Huawei into Britain’s communications puts our infrastructure at risk. Giving Huawei 35% of the 5G network and allowing it into our infrastructure sends a message globally that in terms of telecoms security, anything goes in the UK.
The 5G network is coming and it will be beneficial. The question is how to bring the network forward. Innovations that allow us to speak to friends across the world, that give us limitless information and that will ensure that mobile wi-fi speeds rival those of broadband are necessary for our economic viability, but those possibilities create new threats, such as the placing of spy cameras in every home and microphones in every workplace.
The Americans and the Dutch recognise the threat. The former chief of MI6 recognises the threat. In December 2018, the then Defence Secretary—now the Secretary of State for Education—expressed grave and deep concerns about Huawei providing technology to upgrade Britain’s services to 5G. He accused Beijing of sometimes acting in a malign way. Why can the rest of the Government not recognise the threat? Do we allow a foreign company potential access to every laptop, phone and self-driving car in this country and pay them for the privilege? Do we allow one of the main suppliers of the great firewall to have free rein over our internet back end here? Do we allow a company, closely aligned to a state that has more than 1 million Uyghur Muslims locked up without trial, access to our network infra- structure? I think not.
There have been some attempts to separate the horrors of the Chinese state and Huawei the company, but we have seen time and again that Huawei is intimately intertwined with Chinese policy towards the Uyghur. According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute:
“Huawei works directly with the Chinese Government’s Public Security Bureau in Xinjiang on a range of projects.”
We know that Huawei is collaborating with the Chinese Government to build mass surveillance to target the Uyghur people. Why are we rolling out the red carpet to Huawei? It has shown little concern about human rights violations. Its company policy asks:
“Is it legal within the countries in which we operate?”
That is its criterion. It says it is for others to make a judgment on whether that is right or wrong. Is that the kind of company we want at the heart of our infrastructure?
On workers’ rights, we know that Huawei mistreats not only the Uyghurs, but its own workers. It operates a “wolf” work culture of long hours and brutal workplace norms. Hours are so long that new employees are given mattresses to collapse on. The wolf culture encourages employees to break and bend rules. It means that the company uses the police against its own workers, with some being imprisoned for months and months.
Huawei will not hesitate to break the trust that the Government have placed in them if it thinks it will benefit the company. The Government can choose to release the wolf into our country, but they cannot be surprised if they then get bitten. Ironically, the company claims to be owned by the same workers that it mistreats, but its ownership structures, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, are hugely opaque. The operating company is 100% owned by a holding company, which is in turn approximately 1% owned by Huawei’s founder and 99% owned by an entity called a “trade union committee”.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing the debate. In the four minutes that I have I shall go through some of the important points that have not been covered. Huawei is a high-risk vendor and should not be in our critical national infrastructure. That is the first significant mistake that this Government have made. How bad and how serious it becomes will be obvious in time. I want to cover not only national security, which my right hon. Friend has eloquently spoken about, but data privacy, our values, our alliances, and, critically, other issues around the competence of Huawei, and fair trade and economics.
I still do not understand why the Government continue to claim that Huawei is a private firm. The point has been made already that it is 99% owned by Chinese trade unions, so will the Minister explain why he and previous Ministers—certainly previous Ministers—have argued that Huawei is a private firm when to all intents and purposes it is part and parcel of the Chinese state? The Government claim that Huawei can be safely limited to the periphery of a network. Most experts and many security agencies say not. I quote Mike Burgess, head of Australia’s version of GCHQ:
“The distinction between core and edge collapses in 5G networks. That means that a potential threat anywhere in the network will be a threat to the whole network.”
Will the Minister comment on that? One of Mike Burgess’s senior directors, Simeon Gilding, tried to design a system that could have a high-risk vendor in Australia’s five G network. He failed and said it was not possible. He said that the British
“think they can manage the risk but we don’t think that is plausible given Huawei would be subject to direction from hostile intelligence services.”
Again, will the Minister comment on that? Are there espionage issues with Huawei? They are multiple. Chinese national intelligence law states that citizens have to co-operate. Furthermore, it states that the information that Huawei gets from the UK is the property of the Chinese state. Again, will the Minister comment?
China has a dreadful reputation for cyber-attacks. Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers have been charged with the 2017 cyber-security security attack on Equifax, which included data on millions of Britons. Why does the Minister think the Chinese want to collect so much information on so many millions of people in the west? That applies not only to Britons, but the 21.5 million files they stole on US federal employees in 2015. Can the Huawei Cell offer reassurances? Not really. It states that the Cell
“can only provide limited assurance that all risks to UK national security from Huawei's involvement...can be sufficiently mitigated”.
It complained that no material progress was being made by Huawei on the concerns of 2018, and it continued to identify security issues. Are there other security issues? Yes, for sure there are. I quote Finite State, a respected US company:
“Huawei devices quantitatively pose a high risk to their users.. In virtually all categories we studied, we found Huawei devices to be less secure.”
Bloomberg reported that Vodafone in several countries found illicit backdoors on Huawei technology. In March 2019, Microsoft uncovered Huawei MateBook systems running a system whereby unauthorised people could create super-user privileges. There are significant industrial espionage issues with Huawei. Will the Minister comment on those?
We know about Huawei’s involvement in China’s human rights abuses. It works closely with the state in Xinjiang province. Indeed, it boasts about it. In this country, it is a private company. In China, it is part and parcel of the state apparatus. I would love a comment from the Minister. Huawei claims it is a market leader. According to Chris Balding, an academic who studies Huawei, it is not. It is ranked fourth to sixth globally. It has a $100 billion credit line from the China Development Bank, which means that, apart from any other questionable business practices it has—we have been told of quite a few—it can undercut by 30% to 50% any other vendor. By allowing Huawei in the system, we effectively allow data privacy issues, damage to our alliances, and damage to free trade. We do western companies out of business so that we will have to become reliant in due course on China’s 5G as part of a significant power play in our critical national infrastructure.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I will take it, Chair, because the other one is not here. I guess you mean me. [Laughter.]
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
That is quite all right.
We can tell this debate is important because of the variety of personalities sitting here. We have several former Cabinet Ministers, a former Deputy Prime Minister, and the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Chairman and the former Chairman of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee were here earlier. If the Tory party had a politburo, this would be it. It is clearly a sign that the Government have trouble ahead, and so they should. I do not need to echo many of the objections already made by Members here this morning. I am sure they will continue as the debate goes on, not only here in this room today, but in other parts of the House.
I want the House to consider the issue in a much broader sense. Who writes the rules on this part of international engagement when it comes to things such as the use of chemical or nuclear weapons, or traditional kinetic warfare? We have all kinds of international rules and treaties on the international order, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned, but we have very little written down internationally with our partners when it comes to the cyber world. As far as I can see, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said, by dint of China buying its way into the market, China is writing the rules. The decision has been made by the UK Government from a position of enormous weakness. I take no pleasure in that. I want the Government to get this right, but they are getting it wrong—badly wrong.
The Government are getting it wrong not only because of all the issues around privacy and the broader issues of security, and not only because of the actor involved and its appalling human rights record, but they are in danger of being present but not involved, to coin a phrase, when it comes to setting rules that our citizens rely on so that we can live peacefully, freely and with prosperity. If this is global Britain, I am concerned. Global Britain is not my project, but I wish it well. It is important that it is got right. From where I stand, this looks like gullible Britain, and I think that is a great shame.
During the 2014 independence referendum the parliamentary private secretary to the Minister, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who is sitting here, would have argued that an independent Scotland would be thrown out of Five Eyes and unable to get access to it. It strikes me that the United Kingdom is doing its best to get chucked out of Five Eyes at this very minute, and I do not want that to happen.
I hope that the Minister will respond to many of the concerns that have been raised, but we all need to lift our eyes a bit. We need greater international co-operation on attribution. Given that we do not have—here comes the dreaded phrase—a coalition of the willing in order to set some rules, we will continue to be played by not just China but Iran, Russia, North Korea, non-state actors and surrogate actors. My goodness, what a mess that will make.
If we are serious about global Britain—my party has something to say on that—let us have that discussion, but we cannot talk about Huawei and 5G in isolation, because there is a much bigger picture and something more dangerous at stake.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I start by declaring an interest: I used to work for BT’s cyber-security team before I was elected. I have spent 10 years working in the cyber-security industry, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The security of our telecoms network is vital as we move towards an ever more connected society and economy. It does not, however, rest on the presence or absence of equipment from any single supplier. Strong cyber-security for any system, including our telecoms networks, is determined by: the security architecture principles that have been followed in its design; how the system is managed in-life, including the security controls and monitoring around it; the contingency planning that has taken place, which enables any risks that materialise to be dealt with effectively; and the testing of that contingency planning.
I will address each of those briefly, but the key thing I wish to emphasise is that there is no risk-free option. Regardless of the equipment used, our telecoms networks, Government bodies, businesses and critical national infrastructure operators will always be targets for nation states, aggressors, criminals and hackers. The key thing is to manage the risk and reduce it to an acceptable level. That is what, in my view, the telecoms security requirements achieve.
Bob Seely
I am sorry to interrupt; I know that time is short. Is my hon. Friend saying that there is no implication for 5G security, never mind the geopolitics and politics, of having a high-risk, untrusted vendor from a potentially adversarial state in the system? Is it not like giving the burglar the keys to our house, while pretending that we have a safe that is safe?
Ruth Edwards
For a start, there are no trusted vendors. Most companies operate a zero-trust policy when it comes to all cyber-security vendors. Secondly, the key point is how we manage that risk. I will go on to answer the question in a bit more detail, if my hon. Friend will bear with me.
The TSRs establish a baseline for security in telecoms, and put it on a statutory footing. They prohibit the use of high-risk vendors in sensitive functions of the network, and cap the use of such vendors at 35% across the network as a whole. As a result of their implementation, we will have some of the most secure networks in the world. The TSRs provide a clear and exhaustive list of sensitive functions related to the control, orchestration and virtualisation of our networks where high-risk vendors cannot be used. They will not be used in the intelligence or control planes of the network, and therefore will not interact with customer traffic in a detailed manner. Any impact of failure will also have a limited, localised geographical reach.
Many understandable concerns have been raised that moving to 5G networks will somehow merge those sensitive functions, often referred to as core functions, with less sensitive parts of the network in which equipment from high-risk vendors will be used. Moving to 5G network technologies could enable us to move sensitive functions out to the edge of the network, but “could” does not mean “should”. Were we to do so, using a high-risk vendor would be the least of our problems.
The further restrictions of only one high-risk vendor in the network and the hard cap of 35% further enhance the security standards. Security architecture principles are not a desperate measure to enable us to use a high-risk vendor; they are part of every network deployment everywhere, whether it is a telecoms network at national level or a business network at company level. More sensitive information and functions with higher risk are treated differently from those with lower risk. A blanket approach of doing away with all higher-risk vendors or technologies would mean that we could not use emerging technologies that offer so much benefit when deployed appropriately.
Today’s motion specifically references Huawei. The UK has globally leading insight into Huawei’s operations, processes and products through the Government-chaired Huawei cyber-security evaluation centre. Whoever the vendor is, any responsible telecoms provider will fully test all hardware and software before deploying it into their networks.
Bob Seely
Is that not the problem? So much of our kit is not being tested, which is why we need a fuller security audit. Also, the Cell is becoming increasingly concerned about Huawei, saying that Huawei is not delivering the improvements that the Cell needs. The Cell highlights those concerns in its reports.
Ruth Edwards
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. There are engineering problems in Huawei, and the Government and many UK customers have been very clear that they want Huawei to solve them. The news that I must give him is that if he started looking at the code of any supplier, he would see security issues. In security engineering, I am afraid that people make mistakes when it comes to software.
Equipment and performance is monitored in-life by telcos, and threat hunting is carried out across the whole network. Technologies are increasingly powered by artificial intelligence. AI look for anomalies of behaviour both inside the network, in terms of patterns of incoming traffic, and suspicious outbound traffic. Attempts to sabotage equipment or exfiltrate data at scale will be detected.
The National Cyber Security Centre, my former employer BT and many other telcos have all been very clear that they have not previously detected attempts at malicious activity by Huawei. If they had, they would hardly be doing business with them for their 5G networks. However, we cannot rely on the past to determine the future. That is why the cap on the amount of equipment provided by one supplier is so important, as it stops an over-reliance on one supplier in the network. Other arrangements, such as the escrow of source code, enable providers to isolate equipment in their networks and take over full operation of it, should that be deemed necessary due to mounting international tensions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Paisley. It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for introducing it, for setting the scene so well, and for speaking for the majority of us in this House and in the Chamber today, and the majority of those outside as well.
I am no tech expert—far from it—yet I have had concerns from the outset about the safety of allowing Huawei into the 5G network. When I find myself at a loss regarding the nuances of an issue, I always turn to those who understand it much better. For that purpose, I have looked at the relations of other nations with Huawei, and the facts cannot be ignored. My concerns have led me to question the Minister, today and on previous occasions.
Security and democracy must have priority. Defence of the realm, as the right hon. Member referred to, for this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must be protected. Our first duty must always be to our citizens and constituents. They have told me that they share the deep concerns that so far all Members bar one have expressed in the Chamber today.
My fears and concerns have not been assuaged since the question I asked the then Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), in April last year. I said:
“Huawei has been banned from the core of 5G, but it is to be allowed to operate at the edge. The edge includes masts and antennas, which are also very sensitive. Canada and New Zealand have expressed concern, and Australia and the United States of America have said there is no relevant distinction between the core and the edge of 5G networks. What discussions has the Minister had with those four countries, and has their determination had any influence on our decision?”—[Official Report, 25 April 2019; Vol. 658, c. 892.]
The then Minister’s response was that discussions with our Five Eyes partners were ongoing, yet we appear to have dismissed that, while still allowing that there is a safety implication of Chinese interference and reliance on that technology. Again, I find myself uneasy and desirous that, even at this stage, we rethink this massive step. That is the feeling of the majority in the Chamber.
China is guilty of some of the worst, barbarous, evil, surgical human rights abuses against its own citizens. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and others have referred to the Uyghur Muslims, but it is not just them; there are also the Christians, the Falun Gong, and many other people. China has tried to re-educate them through forced labour and surveillance of what they are doing, and has used Huawei 5G to do so. Huawei has also been deeply involved in organ harvesting—commercial harvesting of organs from people who just happen to have a different faith.
The Financial Post has given this summary:
“The United Kingdom has now broken ranks with many of its closest allies”—
allies in whom we have great trust—
“including fellow members of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing club. The British government classified Chinese company as a ‘high-risk vendor’ and banned it from the core network that manages access and authentication, but nevertheless permitted it to compete for up to 35 percent market share in the country’s access network—that is, its antennae and similar equipment.”
I am only one of 650 Members of this House, and I absolutely believe in the tenets of democracy, but I will not stay silent. I do not believe that what the Government are doing is in the best security interests of this nation, and if steps can be taken to pare it back, those steps must be taken. We have been known as security giants, and I do not like the idea that we are now standing on the shoulders of Chinese giants. We have stood alone, and can do so again, but it is always best that we stand with our allies. The Chinese may hopefully be strong trading partners post Brexit, but by no stretch of the imagination can they ever be considered our allies; their human rights abuses cannot be ignored. This issue is concerning, and we must not leave it here.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Paisley, for calling me to speak in this important debate. Many of the security questions have been covered, so while I do not resile from them I will not cover them again. We have not yet addressed what will be an important issue going forward, which is the simple fact that just as we write laws in this place to shape the culture of society, we shape the culture of our systems by writing code. The code that is being written today in places like Shenzhen is going to shape the culture of our communication systems and the way in which they act together.
This may sound like it is simply a question of noughts and ones—a mathematical process that is devoid of culture—but that is simply not true. Even supposedly neutral systems like accountancy rely on concepts of ownership, individuality, privacy, collectivity or state interference that are culturally specific. That is as true of accountancy today as it was when it was first created, several hundred years ago on these islands. The code that is now being written will have the same implications, so the real decision for us is not just “What are we looking at today in our 5G network, and how much influence will it have on the systems that we seek to operate now and in the immediate future?” but “What cultural norms are we embedding into our society that will shape the concepts of liberty and individuality”—concepts that I thought we held dear?
If we are arguing, as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have done so successfully, that these islands have the right to determine their own future and take back control of their destiny, it seems odd to decide that having just done so, we are going to hand it over to Beijing. I fail to understand why government from Beijing is better than government from Brussels, or why cultural norms set in a collectivised state are better than those that arise among democracies with which, at least, we share values. When I hear colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the United States, Australia or New Zealand speaking clearly about the security implications for all of us, I also think about the foreign policy implications. Whatever we think about our security preparations, if our allies do not trust us, that undermines the alliance. If our allies do not believe that we can keep their data safe, that undermines the sharing of data, and if they do not think we are going to be reliable, that calls the alliance into question. China is already having some success in its geopolitical world, because the game it is playing—the game of dividing its opponents—is meeting with some success. I am very sad that our Government are allowing themselves to be the pawn in that game.
I understand that the Government must take risks in certain areas, and that the decisions they must take are difficult. The Government have to decide whether, if Nokia and Ericsson were the only companies in this space, the collapse of one of those companies would lead to a monopoly, and they therefore see a requirement for a third. However, instead of risking a monopoly, they are taking risks with security, which is a mistake.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this debate. I will use my four minutes to discuss where I agree with the consensus that has emerged in this debate, and where I respectfully disagree.
I agree that 5G is hugely important, for the reasons that have already been given. Two things follow from that: first, security is absolutely paramount in the 5G network, but secondly, subject to our security requirements we should have the best equipment possible. This debate cannot ignore the fact that a great many people in the telecoms industry believe that Huawei equipment is not simply cheaper than its competitors, but better. It therefore seems to me that if our security requirements can be met, it is not logical to entirely exclude Huawei equipment.
This debate has quite sensibly focused on the question of security, but when we are considering the security of the network, it does not seem sensible to focus entirely on Huawei: we have to think about the security of the entire network. These are complex and interdependent networks that must be secure from threats, wherever those threats come from. That is why the telecoms supply chain review that began while I was in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is the right way to approach this issue, and the general principles that it has set out are sound. I am not going to run through all of those principles, although my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) has mentioned some of the telecoms security requirements we should have. However, it is worth saying that diversity, in terms of the number of suppliers in the system, is in itself a security advantage that we should not dispense with unless we need to.
Bob Seely
Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the diversity argument is one of many flawed arguments, because Huawei is undermining diversity? Through Huawei and ZTE, the Chinese state is trying to build up other states’ dependency on it to provide advanced communications, so by getting Huawei in, we are undermining diversity in the market.
Jeremy Wright
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is sensible to make sure we do not undermine diversity through our own actions. However, as a matter of principle, taking suppliers out of the system does not assist diversity. The points he has made are substantially about security, and I agree that this debate must focus on that question. Whether we use market caps or bring along other suppliers in the market, diversity is a legitimate security objective, just as it is a legitimate economic objective. However, I am afraid that we do not have the luxury of inventing a domestic contributor to this market in a short space of time, so we have to deal with the market as it is.
There is a good reason why we focus on the security of the system as a whole and not on one supplier. If we are worried about China, as it is perfectly right for us to be, it is worth keeping in mind the fact that many of the competitor suppliers referred to in this debate use Chinese components in their equipment, or assemble their equipment in China. It is therefore important to recognise China’s potential to intervene.
Tom Tugendhat
Given that we are about to spend £100 billion on a train line, would it not be sensible to invest some of that money in our own infrastructure if we are so concerned about Chinese suppliers?
Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend really should not get me started on HS2; we do not have time.
We should not just be worried about Huawei or about China, but about the security of the entire telecoms infrastructure. However, if we are going to talk about Huawei, let us not forget first of all that Huawei is already in the system. Sometimes these debates are conducted as though it were going to come in for the first time, but it is here already, managed differently to other suppliers. Secondly and most importantly, let us not disregard the advice of our highly respected intelligence agencies, which have said that the inclusion of Huawei’s equipment is consistent with our security requirements. I have had the privilege of working with those agencies, as I know many other Members present have. They are world class, and it is important that we do not disregard what they say.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
The Government have found themselves between a rock and a hard place, facing a decision between spiralling costs and high security. We have serious concerns about establishing such a fundamental part of our digital infrastructure with Chinese-owned technology. Any and all our concerns and doubts about the impact it could have on the security and autonomy of our data must be answered beyond reproach before such a risk is taken with our vital national infrastructure. To ensure that, the Government should conduct a full independent review and assessment in collaboration with allies in the Five Eyes.
Ensuring our grasp on the information and capabilities reliant on 5G technology is pivotal in exploiting the benefits and power that it undoubtedly offers, as well as in protecting ourselves from it. We have heard a lot about the threat of back doors in Huawei hardware and software that would allow it to be controlled remotely from outside the UK. Of course that is a legitimate concern, but the bigger issue is the more systematic security failings in the software that could be remotely exploited.
The 2019 report of the board that supervises the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre said that Huawei lacks “basic engineering competence” and brings a
“significantly increased risk to UK operators”.
The board could give “only limited assurance” about the ability for risks to be managed.
Another risk is that equipment providers usually have automated authorised remote access to their hardware to provide support to carry out a managed services contract, with the equipment requiring regular software security updates and bug fixes. There is a lot of outsourcing in the sector, including to Huawei, with further potential for security breaches.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I understand the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, but given that our intelligence agencies have designed the Government’s approach, that the National Security Council has signed off on it and that all Ministers going to its briefings have agreed with it, should we not put more faith in the risk mitigation measures that the Government have announced?
John Nicolson
No, I would not put faith in them, not least because there is little consensus among former heads of intelligence about the issue.
John Nicolson
I will not; I will make progress.
The UK has spent, and continues to spend, billions of pounds on the development, maintenance and renewal of 20th-century defence systems, such as Trident, that are simply not fit to face the security challenges of the modern era. The biggest threats we now face—terrorism, climate change and, of course, cyber-security—will not be deterred by multibillion-pound nuclear weapons in the firth of Clyde.
In the meantime, our telecoms infrastructure security has been left weak and exposed by decades of under-investment. Countering the threat would require serious investment in, and protection of, our native companies, which would involve a hard look at China’s enthusiasm for the acquisition of small engineering firms. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) asked who has been asleep at the watch, but we all know which Government and which party has been in charge for the last decade. With China aiming to monopolise the market, it is not too late for the Government and the country to wake up.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
The hon. Member took very little time, which gives considerable time to the shadow Minister. I call Chi Onwurah.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this incredibly important debate. We are on opposite sides of the House, but we share a deep commitment to British security and technological capability, which is clearly also shared by the many hon. Members present.
The UK has a proud technological history, from the earliest days of the industrial revolution to the invention of the first fibre-optic cable and, of course, the world wide web. Why, then, at the outset of the fourth industrial revolution, are we in a Huawei hole of our own making? As an enabling technology, 5G represents much more than faster mobile internet speeds. As the web enables applications that its inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee could never have dreamed of, 5G provides the platform for the technologies that will define the 21st century.
As I may have mentioned before, I am a chartered electrical engineer and a tech evangelist. I want the United Kingdom to harness all the benefits that 5G networks can bring, but if the foundations are poorly laid, or not laid at all, the potential for national harm is significant. After I graduated from Imperial College London, my first job was for a world leader in the then-emerging telecommunications sector. I spent eight years with Nortel designing networking equipment all over the world and working with many of the other equipment vendors at the time, such as Alcatel, Siemens, Nokia, Ericsson and Motorola. If someone had said to me that, a couple of decades later, we would be incapable of building a European telecoms network without a Chinese supplier, I would have been dumbfounded.
As we have heard, Huawei is bound by China’s national intelligence law to support, co-operate and collaborate with national intelligence work. That raises many concerns for the security of our 5G network. I will not repeat those raised by many hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). The fact that Huawei is designated by our National Cyber Security Centre as high risk says it all. It is high risk, so why are we taking a risk with our national security? My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the human rights and employment rights abuses with which Huawei is linked.
I have 10 questions for the Minister. How has the industry got itself into a position where our critical national infrastructure is so dependent on one high-risk vendor? The UK telecoms supply chain review, as summarised by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), was seven months ago. The then Government committed to reduce our reliance on high-risk vendors over the next five to 10 years. Can the Minister say how that is happening? We have heard nothing since. The Government also said then that they would legislate at the earliest available opportunity. Again, we have heard nothing since.
With network design, cyber-security specialists will always advise people to assume breach, but the Government’s approach seems to have designed into it breach by a foreign power at a time of unprecedented geopolitical tension. I have many more questions as there is much that we do not know. What percentage of the UK’s currently deployed full fibre and mobile networks involves a designated high-risk vendor? From what proportion of our networks are they to be excluded under the terms of the NCSC advice?
If I understand the Government’s position, 5G and full fibre are critical national infrastructure, but only parts of them need to be secure. That is a difficult but, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe suggested, tenable technological position, but we need to see the measures that will mitigate the risks and manage them out of our network.
On the international ramifications of the Government’s decision, as we have heard, the UK is the only member of the global intelligence-sharing network Five Eyes to have chosen to accept Huawei, with the exception of Canada, which is yet to make a decision but is being advised to block it. All the other members, the US, Australia and New Zealand, have blocked Huawei’s involvement, citing security concerns. Can the Minister tell us why our allies are taking such a different approach? Does he have a proper and detailed understanding of the impact on our international relationships, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) highlighted?
Labour wants to work with the Government on this clear issue of national security. The Government say that the economic cost of barring Huawei would be too great and Mobile UK has estimated that a delay would cost £7 billion. If I compare that with the £8.3 billion committed by the Government to Brexit preparations, however, it strikes me as a clear case of political priorities—and what priorities they are, when we are at a profound national security crossroads.
I hold the National Cyber Security Centre in the highest regard—I thank its representatives for meeting me yesterday—but I ask the Minister to address a concern. The supply chain review report spoke of statutory guidance, but so far we have only had blogs. It is good to be responsive and we know that President Trump’s tweets have some force of law in America. Is the same true of these blogs? Will Ofcom be enforcing them?
The supply chain review report also promised telecoms security requirements, which would set a new bar for security and be enforced by Ofcom. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe seemed to imply that those requirements are available, but I have not seen them. Will the Minister tell me whether they are available, how they are to be enforced and with what resources, for both Ofcom and the Huawei cyber-security observance centre?
Finally, consolidation and competition from the Chinese subsidised sector means that many of the vendors and operators in the telecoms sector have finances that do not look exactly sustainable or stable. What is the Minister doing to assess the financial security of the sector?
As the Government shilly-shallies over national security, we will be tabling amendments to the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill currently going through Parliament that will seek to reduce our dependence on high-risk vendors. I hope I will have the support of the Minister and other Members in this Chamber.
Labour also has proposals on the telecommunications industrial strategy, which has been highlighted by many Members, to ensure that we can take a leap forward in this critical technological area, including support for new standards and a new catapult, to bring together existing centres of excellence to ensure that we can once more be at the forefront of technological innovation. The good news is that, in technology, you are never so far behind that you cannot leapfrog existing technology. The bad news is that it takes investment in strategic vision—a quality that this Government sorely lack. Huawei is a test of both.
I return to my first question. Why are we in this position and what steps are the Government taking to ensure that it does not happen again, and to eliminate our dependence on high-risk vendors? The Government should start to proactively identify future technological needs and invest strategically to ensure that they can be met by a wider range of platform providers.
The Government claim to care about political sovereignty—about taking back control from foreign powers. It is high time that we started caring about technological sovereignty too.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I inform him that he has considerable time in which to make his contribution and he can take a number of short interventions, if he so chooses. Any time that he leaves at the end, I will give to Sir Iain Duncan Smith for a wind-up speech.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
This has been an important and timely debate. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has provided the Government with an opportunity to clarify some of their position.
As he knows, the Government’s first priority is to protect our citizens and their interests. That means that the security of our telecoms and critical national infrastructure is of paramount importance. That is why we undertook the telecoms supply chain review—to allow us to make hard-headed, evidence-based decisions.
The UK is a global leader in cyber-security. Our world-class security agencies have set out their security analysis of the telecoms sector in a level of public detail unmatched anywhere in the world.
It is because of the need to manage the risks to national security that we have made the decisions that we have on high-risk vendors, concluding that there needs to be strong restrictions on their presence in the network. It is because we need to improve the security of the network overall that we need a new security framework for telecoms.
Over time, our intention is to reduce our reliance on high-risk vendors, as market diversification takes place. We want to get to a position where we do not have to use a high-risk vendor in our telecoms network at all.
Matt Warman
In a moment. Although it is driven by security, our decision making reflects the reality of the UK network and the global supply chain marketplace, and that is why diversification is key. I give way to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Tom Tugendhat
Can I be very clear on what the Minister said? He is saying that the Government’s aim is to reduce to zero high-risk vendors, of which Huawei is one.
Matt Warman
As I say, we want to get to a position where we do not have to use a high-risk vendor in our telecoms network.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
This is a very important point. I want to know, and I think the rest of the House would like to know, whether it is now Government policy to drive to 0% involvement by Huawei and other non-secure vendors. Is that now the policy—not just to 35%?
Matt Warman
Our aim is not to be reliant on high-risk vendors at all. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend would like me to set out a timetable for that, but I cannot do that today.
There are major market problems we need to address and they are common to all western nations. We have to remain hard-headed and evidence-based. We want to ensure that, as new technologies develop, we have a vibrant and diverse ecosystem of suppliers that we can rely on. The decisions we have made in this area are the right ones because they are based on hard evidence.
Bob Seely
We are not getting at the Minister, who we hold in high regard, but at the decision that he is, unfortunately, having to defend. He is now talking about the economics. The problem is that because Huawei is so bankrolled by the Chinese state, it can simply undercut other providers. Even if Fujitsu and Samsung—not to mention UK companies—want to come into the market, so that there is a diverse, multiplayer, western market in 5G, it is very difficult to get to that because Huawei will always undercut, and telcos are heavily indebted and therefore will do Huawei’s bidding. That is a structural problem.
Matt Warman
I will come on to what we will do to try to promote market diversification in a moment. Suffice it to say, we do not and will never put anything other than national security at the very top of our agenda on this issue.
Mr Carmichael
I want to clarify a very simple point. The moving to 0% of high-risk vendors seems good common sense to me. Is the Minister telling the Chamber that Huawei is classified by this Government as a high-risk vendor?
Matt Warman
Yes. Huawei and ZTE are both high-risk vendors, as we have said previously.
Matt Warman
I fear making no progress at all if I keep giving way.
Put simply, in the view of the most expert telecommunications specialists in the world, as others have said in the debate, a limited amount of carefully controlled hardware from China does not compromise our national security. This Government will continue to do all it can to put the experts who hold that view, both private and public sector, at the disposal of this House. I am grateful to all those hon. Members who have taken up the opportunities for such briefings and I wish they were greater in number. The Government are confident that we are putting the nation’s interests first.
Mr David Davis
I say to the Minister that a mixture of good and bad is not diversity. That is the first thing. He says that he puts the security of the nation first. In pursuit of that, the Government have claimed that there is no back door to Huawei hardware. The Americans assert differently. The Germans agree with them. Other countries agree with them. He served on the Bill Committee for the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. I remind him of sections 252 and 253, which give us the right to have a back door. How can we have a back door, when the hardware installer, the hardware supplier and the hardware administrator does not?
Matt Warman
My right hon. Friend highlights the need for oversight, which I will come on to talk about in a minute.
Telecoms networks are complex. They rely on global supply chains, where some limited measure of vulnerability is inevitable. The critical security question that we have to ask ourselves is how we mitigate such vulnerabilities and stop them damaging the British people and our economy.
Jamie Stone
The Minister has repeatedly said that the security of our country is paramount. Surely if we queer our pitch with Australia and New Zealand, that militates against looking after the security of this country.
Matt Warman
I will come to the international picture later, if I get the chance.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Minister keeps talking about the security of the nation, but we know that many UK companies working in the areas of photonics and quantum are concerned about national security. They want to scale up but cannot get funding from his Government, and they therefore look to countries such as China in order to expand—another area where this Government are failing.
Matt Warman
The hon. Member raises a point that I would be happy to cover in another debate, but the Government and I share some of her concerns.
It is because of our security and intelligence agencies that we have a comprehensive understanding of the threats and risks of 5G, and I would like to remind right hon. and hon. Members—not that I need to—that our agencies are the envy of the world. They work every day to safeguard our national security and put the UK’s interests at the heart of everything we do. The National Cyber Security Centre has provided expert technical and security advice on 5G. They are experts in the technical changes that will take place in the network and in the risks we currently face from the presence of high-risk vendors’ equipment in our networks and those of many of our allies. They are experts in security, including the national security threats that we face today. Our unique shared understanding of security threats and risks, together with that of the technical characteristics of the network, means that the NCSC is in the best possible position to advise on the cyber-security of the UK’s telecoms national infrastructure.
Mr Paterson
The Minister has so nearly got the Government to the right position. He has admitted that Huawei is a high risk and that it is the Government’s intention to get to no high-risk vendors. He has admitted that he listens to our allies, who are overwhelmingly against Huawei’s involvement in the 5G network. Australia, France and the United States have all said that they have taken advice. We know that Korea has gone for an alternative supplier. Why can the Minister not follow the logic of what he is saying and tell us, “Yes, we are going to get out of Huawei over a fixed period of time and work closely with our Five Eyes allies.”? He is so nearly saying the right thing, but he has a ghastly brief because the Government have got themselves into a mess. They have inherited a mess from their predecessors. Why can he not be honest and say, “We want to get to zero, and that is the safe place to go to.”?
Matt Warman
I hope my right hon. Friend takes significant comfort from what I have said: we want to get to a position where we are not reliant at all on high-risk vendors.
We have confidence in the independent technical assessment from our security experts and, importantly, the telecommunications industry has confidence in those assessments, too. That is why we have been in a position to publish as much of our security assessment as we have done. As a result, we have the most detailed study of what is needed to protect 5G networks anywhere in the world. We are not naive about Huawei or its relationship with the Chinese state. Since Huawei has entered the UK network, it has been carefully managed. Through the cyber-security evaluation centre and the oversight board, we have the greatest access to, and insight on, Huawei equipment anywhere in the world.
Bob Seely
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way yet again.
Does he understand that many of us take issue with what he has just said? First, figures from the security world who have publicly spoken up, such as Richard Dearlove, are hostile to what the Minister says. There is a sense that the Government have given our security agencies a fait accompli, because almost all our allies’ cyber-security agencies take a diametrically opposed view to the one that he presents. Secondly, will he acknowledge that the Banbury Cell now has very serious concerns about Huawei?
Matt Warman
As I said, we are introducing the new regime because of some of the concerns that my hon. Friend addresses. I reiterate the Government’s offer to put at the disposal of any Member of the House as many experts from the public and private sectors that we can, so that colleagues can be in touch with the latest thinking on this issue.
We understand the threat from China and are robust with it when our interests are challenged. We will continue to publicly call out malicious cyber-activity, and the decision to categorise Huawei as a high-risk vendor took into consideration the potential links between Chinese companies and the Chinese state, including the fact that Chinese companies are subject to China’s national intelligence law. The UK has also been vocal in drawing attention to the systematic human rights violations against Uyghur Muslims and other ethnic minorities in China. The Government have set out our expectations of businesses in the UK national action plan on business and human rights.
The telecoms supply chain review, which was laid before the House in July 2019, underlined the range and nature of the risks, highlighting the risks of dependence on one vendor, faults or vulnerabilities in network equivalence equipment, the back-door threat, and vendors’ administrative access. We need to be alive to the totality of the risks that the telecoms network faces today and will face in the future. High-risk vendors are part of that security risk assessment, but they are not the sole factor.
I want to address some of the myths about how the network will develop. It is true that technical characteristics of 5G create a greater surface area for potential attacks, but it will still be possible to distinguish different parts of the network. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) said, what matters are the critical functions within the network. We need to ensure that critical functions, wherever they are, have appropriate security.
Matt Warman
I will come to the issue of the network’s core and edge, which will answer some of the questions that Members want to ask.
Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security Centre, set out in a recent blog post that the notion that there is no distinction between the core and the edge cannot be true. He says that, with 5G networks,
“you need lots of smaller basestations as well as big ones, and the small ones will be on lampposts, bus shelters and other places that aren’t secure from physical interference by bad guys. So, if your network design means that you need to run really sensitive functions processing really sensitive data (i.e. core functions) on an edge access device on top of a bus stop, your choice of vendor is the least of your worries and you probably shouldn’t be designing critical national infrastructure. The international standards that define what a 5G network actually is allow you to do all sorts of things, and some of those things could lead to security or operational risks that can’t be mitigated. That doesn’t mean you have to do them.”
We in this country will not do such things.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matt Warman
I will give way briefly to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Tom Tugendhat
Does the Minister recognise that it was not Tim Berners-Lee, but Rod Stewart, who foresaw the amazing power of the internet? It is not just the technical experts, but the imagination of people who will build on their technical skills, that will determine where the risks really lie.
Matt Warman
My hon. Friend knows that we have some of the most imaginative experts working for us in our agencies, which is why we are establishing one of the strongest regimes for telecoms security in the world—a regime that will raise standards across the UK’s telecoms operators and the vendors that supply them. At the heart of the new regime, the NCSC’s new telecoms security requirements guidance will provide clarity to industry on what is expected of network security, and it will raise the height of the security by including the supply chain management. The Government will legislate at the earliest opportunity to introduce the new comprehensive telecoms security regime and new statutory telecoms security requirements, which are to be overseen by both Ofcom and the Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matt Warman
I will not take any more interventions.
We expect that the new regime will include new obligations on telecoms operators to comply with telecoms security requirements, and we are considering whether Ofcom requires further power to ensure that, as we have said before, high-risk vendors will be excluded from security-critical network functions, limited to a minority presence of up to 35% in other network functions, and be subjected to tight restrictions.
Those controls are not without cost. BT has already identified a £500 million cost to it alone, and we did not take these decisions lightly. We will legislate at the earliest opportunity, and that legislation will be important in enabling the Government to manage the risks to the network and enforce conclusions on high-risk vendors. However, it also needs to be flexible enough to allow us to continue to manage the risks as they evolve; as I have described, we will manage them over time. I want to reassure Members that the Government share the ambition that our long-term goal is to reduce our reliance on high-risk vendors, and a timetable must be contingent on diversification in the market.
Successive western Governments have failed to ensure that there is effective competition in the market, and we are faced with a very narrow choice of suppliers for these technologies. Through a strategy of market diversification, we will seek to attract global vendors and to ensure there are new entrants into the supply chain, and we will promote the adoption of open, interoperable standards. We are already in talks with Samsung, and our 5G test beds and trials programmes do not use high-risk vendors. We need to work quickly with like-minded countries to develop a diversification strategy.
The debate on 5G security is global, and our Five Eyes network and other partner relationships are incredibly important. We will continue to work closely with them, and we know they understand the decision that we have taken. I conclude by saying simply that national security will always be at the top of our priorities and we will work to move towards no involvement of high-risk vendors.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Sports Coaches (Positions of Trust)
(4 years, 8 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
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered positions of trust and sports coaches.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. In November 2016, former Crewe Alexandra player Andy Woodward waived his anonymity to become the first player to publicly reveal that he was sexually abused as a child by former coach Barry Bennell. Woodward’s bravery led to others coming forward to speak about their experiences of shocking abuse.
Within a few days, the Football Association and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children had set up a hotline dedicated to helping footballers who had experienced historical sexual abuse. In the first week, the hotline received nearly 900 calls. Football was in the middle of a major safeguarding scandal, but the problem was not limited to football. Athletes from different sports spoke out about their experiences of historical sexual abuse at the hands of coercive coaches or managers who were intent on getting what they wanted by using—or rather, abusing—their position of trust.
I was Sports Minister at that time, and I remember feeling an element of pride in how sport reacted to those horrific stories. The FA did what it had to do for football and the same was done for other sports. Within a relatively short time, sport as a whole, while recognising that many of the incidents in the press were historical and took place before much of our child protection legislation was in place, instigated internal changes to safeguarding practices to ensure that procedures were in place to maximise protection against abuse in sport.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. I took part in a 2018 debate on safeguarding children in sport when she was Sports Minister, and I was very thankful for all that she said in reply to the questions that were raised, as well as for the role that she played. I am here again to support her. Does she agree that in this place we have talked for far too long about this issue? We now need to act to ensure that the trust of no more children is abused through this loophole.
Tracey Crouch
I remember the debate that the hon. Gentleman mentions and to which I responded. I entirely agree that there has been far too much talk, which is why I secured this debate.
I will return to what sport was doing in 2016 and early 2017 to maximise protections against abuse in sport. As well as football, other sports—with support from Sport England and the NSPCC child protection in sport unit—also made positive changes in a relatively short time to the way that they keep their participants safe. They rightly took responsibility and took it seriously.
They asked for just one thing from the Government, which was to extend the positions of trust legislation to include sports coaches. That was a perfectly reasonable request—one with which the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport agreed—but the Government have failed to deliver on that ask and, as a result, we have potentially put other youngsters at risk from abusive coaches.
Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, it is illegal for certain professions, such as teachers, to engage in sexual activity with a 16 or 17-year-old, as they are considered a person in a position of trust. The Act proscribes a limited number of roles but does not extend into a range of non-statutory settings that may be subject to far less scrutiny than those covered by the Act.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. I declare an interest as both a teacher and a gymnastics coach. The relationships that coaches of gymnastics and other sports develop with athletes can, without a shadow of a doubt, be far deeper than those of other teachers, because of the amount of time spent in their company, particularly with elite athletes. We have to get this absolutely right to protect children.
Tracey Crouch
As somebody who coached in football for a very long time, I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from. I completely agree that the relationships that coaches build with the people in their care as they develop in their sports journey are incredibly important. I vividly remember an email that I received from somebody after the abuse stories came to light. They were also a teacher, but they had not realised that the positions of trust legislation, under which they operated every day in their professional life as a teacher, did not extend to times when they independently stood at the side of a football pitch as a coach.
Our colleague, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), has done some excellent work on this matter. The report from the all-party parliamentary group on safeguarding in faith settings should be required reading for anyone who cares about the issue.
We should perhaps reflect briefly on why we have that particular section of legislation in the 2003 Act. People who work in schools, as carers or as youth workers, will have gone through the required disclosure and barring service checks. Although some might fall through the cracks, ultimately, people who pose a known risk to children or vulnerable adults will not, if the system works properly, be allowed to work in that sector. The legislation adds an extra layer of safeguarding to prevent those in positions of trust from forming relationships with children who, although they are over the age of consent, are not considered legal adults and could be abused given the nature of the power balance.
I have spent a significant amount of my life coaching, so I can tell the Minister that I concur with sports and the NSPCC that in sport especially, but not exclusively, the elite pathway is a vulnerable area. In my view, the Ministry of Justice should have acted positively and straightaway to close as soon as possible the loophole in the 2003 Act.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Some say that because a coach has to have a DBS check, the positions of trust legislation is not necessary. Assistant coaches, however, who are supervised by coaches, do not need to undergo DBS checks and could fall through the cracks. Does the hon. Lady agree that the positions of trust legislation needs to be extended to cover those areas as well?
Tracey Crouch
I completely agree; DBS checks should not be the be-all and end-all. The legislation adds an extra level of safeguarding.
When I was dealing with the issue as Sports Minister, it was claimed that if the legislation was extended to sports coaches, it would also need to be extended to music teachers, private tutors or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) has called for, driving instructors. My response, as the daughter of a social worker who spent her life dealing with child sexual abuse, is, “Yes it absolutely should be.” I fail to fully understand why it should not.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making exactly the right case. I have experience of a situation in which a driving instructor had clearly groomed one of my constituents, as well as another case, which is well known to the NSPCC, in which somebody was groomed for a very long time by a sports coach who continues to offer his services.
In truth, we know from recent exposures that the problem is not limited to the UK—it happens around the world—and it is time this country set an example by changing the law. Does my hon. Friend agree that, with a new Justice Minister—my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk)—that would be a great step forward?
Tracey Crouch
I agree, and I hope that the Minister is listening and will take positive action. My hon. Friend has done amazing work to highlight the issues with driving instructors and should be congratulated on that. Concerns about the scope of the proscribed list is a poor reason to avoid taking a policy position and changing the positions of trust provisions.
Anyone in a position to influence the direction of another person’s journey through life—meaning that a power balance rests with them—should not be able to abuse that position via a sexual relationship. Someone’s place in the team or time on the pitch, or the competitions in which they are entered, should not be vulnerable to another person’s physical or emotional demands.
The legislation can be easily amended, either by adding to the list or removing it altogether. The Ministry asked for evidence of why change was required and, although evidence was provided, nothing has happened. Earlier this year, The Guardian reported that a freedom of information request had found that between 2014 and 2018, there were 653 cases in which adults who could be regarded as being in a position of trust had had a sexual relationship with a 16 or 17-year-old. Of the 495 cases in which the adult’s role was recorded, the majority were in sport, and the data showed that such incidents had increased.
Sport is doing what it can to prevent dangerous people from working with children and young adults. It has enhanced its safeguarding procedures, as part of the implementation of my sports governance code, and many use enhanced DBS checks. While the loophole exists, however, that in the eyes of the law it is deemed okay to have sex with someone over the age of 16 in your trust in sport, coercive and abusive behaviour will continue and the lives of many more youngsters will be ruined.
When I was a Minister, with the then Home Office and Justice Ministers, we agreed that that change was essential, so the inexplicable delay in implementing that ministerial direction is shameful. I understand that the MOJ is exploring non-legislative solutions but, frankly, that can never solve what is fundamentally a legal problem. It would be a shocking downgrading of the Department’s responsibilities. Guidance is not the law, in that sense.
I appreciate that the Minister was not in the hot seat when officials were finding reasons why not to do that previously, but he is now. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, now is the time for no more dither, no more delay. We have a duty to act. This legislative loophole needs a legislative solution, and it needs to be done now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for securing this important debate and for her distinguished service as a Minister. Her speech was absolutely in the spirit of that distinguished service.
As my hon. Friend indicated, I have been in post for only a few short weeks, but it is already crystal clear to me that this is an extremely important issue which requires a clear, considered and decisive response. The Government have been reviewing the law in this area. I have said that we should urgently consider all options, including legislative change, and must be in a position to announce next steps by the end of May.
Turning to some basic principles, protecting children and young people from the scourge of sexual abuse and exploitation is a top priority for this Government. Ensuring that the law is effective in providing that protection is not just our priority, but our duty. As most stakeholders acknowledge, however, this area is not without complexity—that is not a reason not to tackle it, but we need to advert to it. I will set out some of the issues and explain why charting the way ahead requires careful thought.
It is worth taking a moment to summarise the state of the existing law. In a short debate, that can only be a brief overview. As we know, sexual activity with a child under 16 is of course always a serious criminal offence, regardless of consent, and non-consensual activity is a crime regardless of the age of the victim or the relationship between the victim and perpetrator.
Alongside those two offences, to turn to positions of trust, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 created a number of offences that specifically target any sexual activity between a 16 or 17-year-old young person and people who hold a defined “position of trust” in respect of that young person, even if such activity is consensual, as my hon. Friend indicated.
Those offences were designed to build on the general child sex offences in the 2003 Act, and are defined to target situations in which the young person has considerable dependency on the adult involved, often combined with an element of vulnerability of the young person. The offences are directed at those who are employed to look after young people under the age of 18, such as those providing care for a young person in a residential care home, a hospital or an educational institution. That particularly adverts to the fact that the state has a role in the child’s development or care.
As my hon. Friend made crystal clear, those offences do not cover all positions in which a person might have contact with, or a supervisory role of, a young person aged under 18. That was a deliberate decision by the Government of the day. In preparation for this debate, I looked up some of the relevant debates. The issue of scope was raised in the other place by Baroness Blatch, a Conservative, on 13 February 2003. She noted that she was “disappointed” that provision had not been made in the Bill to encompass those being supervised as scouts or in youth centres. Interestingly, when responding to her that same day, Lord Falconer said:
“I understand the noble Baroness’s argument, but a line has to be drawn somewhere and we think that is the right place”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 2003; Vol. 644, c. 878.]
My sense is that that judgment may well be wrong but, in fairness to the noble lord, it is not a straightforward one to make. What is at stake here is a need to balance the legal right, as prescribed by Parliament, for young persons aged 16 and over to consent to sexual activity, with the proper desire to protect vulnerable young people from manipulation.
Another complicating feature is the evolving case law in the area. In certain situations, the criminal division of the Court of Appeal has already been clear that supposed consent may be vitiated or even negated, thereby creating a criminal offence in any event. To put that in plain English and to give an example, in the case of McNally, deception by a defendant as to her sex—she falsely claimed she was a man—was held to vitiate the victim’s consent to intercourse.
That is important because, as the Crown Prosecution Service now indicates in its charging decisions, in certain circumstances that ruling could apply where perpetrators were in a position of power in which they could abuse their trust over a victim. If we look at the CPS charging decision—in other words, when making a decision about whether there truly was consent in a relationship—one of the matters that has to be considered is:
“Where the suspect was in a position of power where they could abuse their trust, especially because of their position or status—e.g. a family member, teacher, religious leader, employer, gang member, carer, doctor”.
The point is that it is no longer necessarily automatically good enough for the defendant to say, “Look, she consented”, if in fact that will was suborned in some way. That might well be a very proper reason why the CPS could conclude that there had been no consent.
Richard Graham
On that point, does the list of categories for the CPS to consider include or exclude—or is it neutral on—the issue of sports coaches, music teachers and driving instructors, for example?
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend makes a characteristically pertinent point. That is a non-exhaustive list, which is an important consideration to bear in mind. The proper points that he made are not lost completely on some charging prosecutors, and that is an important part of the context.
Tracey Crouch
If that is the case, let us scrap section 21. Then there would be no prescribed list, and a definition of “position of trust”, which the CPS is clearly working on, could include sports coaches, driving instructors and music teachers.
Alex Chalk
An interesting balance has to be struck. On the one hand, this place properly might want to prescribe where that happens, allowing no discretion for the CPS, but on the other hand, there may be a relevant public policy interest in saying to prosecutors that in other cases there is wider discretion. I have already made the point that in 2003 Parliament decided to draw a distinction that appears to focus on circumstances in which the state has a particular role in caring for the individual. That is something to be considered.
In 2019 the Government, recognising the concerns powerfully and properly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, began a review of the law on such abuses of positions of trust. Notwithstanding the narrow focus of this debate—on sports coaches—concerns about scope range far wider, as indicated by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). That is why the review also took account of the IICSA report—independent inquiry into child sexual abuse—on the Anglican Church, which focused on the diocese of Chichester and the response to allegations against Peter Ball, a former bishop who in 2015 pleaded guilty to a series of sex offences. Recommendation 3 of that report stated:
“The government should amend Section 21 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 so as to include clergy within the definition of a position of trust. This would criminalise under s16–s20 sexual activity between clergy and a person aged 16–18, over whom they exercise pastoral authority, involving the abuse of a position of trust.”
Other settings might conceivably be relevant, such as youth clubs and scouts—as Baroness Blatch pointed out in 2003—and drama groups, choirs, Army cadets and learner drivers, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester has done such a good job of drawing to the attention of the House.
Ministry of Justice officials have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders across youth and criminal justice sectors, including, in the area of faith and religion, the Anglican dioceses of Chichester and Lincoln, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Gardens of Peace, the Hindu Council UK, Marriage Care, the Sikh Council UK and St Philip’s Centre. In the sporting sector, the review team has heard from British Canoeing, British Fencing, British Gymnastics, the Football Association, the Lawn Tennis Association, the Royal Yachting Association, the Rugby Football League, the Rugby Football Union, Sport England and Swim England—I could go on.
A huge number of people have been consulted on this important issue. Officials have gone beyond those two areas to speak to youth organisations, including the National Citizen Service, the National Youth Agency, the Scouts and Volunteer Police Cadets. Those discussions were candid and wide ranging, and views were shared throughout the process. On behalf of the MOJ, I am extremely grateful to those who have given of their time for that important process.
A number of themes and suggestions emerged during the review, and it is right to note that many were non-legislative in nature. They included the better provision of education, the consideration of the effectiveness of the DBS system in practice, raising awareness and understanding of what grooming and genuine consent really look like, and the measures needed to protect young people from this type of abusive behaviour. Many measures can be taken alongside any potential changes to criminal law, which I am not ruling out at all—we will look at them very carefully. It is important to note that they deserve careful consideration.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
As a former national coach for Squash Wales—I notice that squash was not on the Minister’s list—part of my role was to hold coaching courses and increase the number of coaches. There are clear guidelines in squash that coaches cannot form any sort of relationship with a person under their care. I do not think that is good enough. If I could say to those coaches that it is against the law to form a relationship, it is clear cut and definitive. That should be the ruling.
Alex Chalk
That is precisely the matter that we have to grapple with. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for expressing her point.
Returning, for completeness, to the exhaustive process of review, most stakeholders that the MOJ heard from felt that a change in the law was required. Most also agreed that any change or reform of the existing laws raised difficult and complicated issues. Some expressed concern that drafting the law too narrowly, or perhaps simply listing roles or jobs considered as a position of trust, risked creating loopholes or definitions that could be easily exploited or circumvented by abusers. Equally, others raised the point that any broad or wide-sweeping new definition could raise the age of consent by stealth.
If we do not get this right, it is not difficult to think of hard cases that would risk undermining confidence in the criminal justice system. One could imagine, as was imagined specifically by Lord Falconer in the 2003 debate, a consensual relationship between a 19-year-old coach and a 17-year-old footballer where no abuse of power or trust had taken place, and with no suggestion of any sort of bargain whereby sexual activity was traded for, say, team selection. In such circumstances, there might be proper public concern about criminalising that coach. Let us be clear: he or she would be at risk of conviction, punishment and disgrace, alongside a conviction that would remain on the police national computer for life. He or she may well be subject to stringent notification requirements. His or her life would be, to a large extent, ruined.
With that in mind, the Government are considering all options, including legislative change, and they are doing so with pace and care. As noted already, I have asked that that work be prioritised, and I will be in a position to announce next steps before the end of May.
This debate has offered a valuable contribution to the evaluation of these important issues. They are important because safeguarding young people in all situations, not just those limited to sport, is essential.
Tracey Crouch
Before the Minister concludes, will he give two guarantees? First, will he meet the NSPCC, which is asking not for guidance but for the legislative loophole to be closed? It is the country’s largest child protection charity and it ought to be listened to with respect for the campaign that it has run for a long time. Secondly, will he listen to some audio of former athletes who were abused or were in coercive relationships with their coaches? Once he has listened to their stories and the likes of Sport England and the Child Protection in Sport Unit, perhaps he will come to a different conclusion and take a different path.
Alex Chalk
Yes, of course I will be delighted to meet the NSPCC. Secondly, if my hon. Friend wants to send me footage to listen to, I will gladly listen to it. My door remains entirely open if she would like to take up these matters further with me.
I invite my hon. Friend not to presuppose what road the Ministry or I am on. In the short period that I have been seized of this matter, I have recognised its urgency and pressing nature. I have, I hope, properly adverted to the fact that there are complexities that needs to be ironed out. The singular injustice to any victims would be that, in a legitimate attempt to improve safeguarding, we undermine public confidence in it. That is why we have got to get this right—because, ultimately, safeguarding young people will remain a relentless focus of this Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Asylum Decisions (Support for Refugees)
(4 years, 8 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
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for refugees after receiving an asylum decision.
The asylum process is anxiety-inducing and arduous, but for many the intense relief of being granted refugee status by the UK Government is only momentary. For new refugees—people who, let us remember, have escaped conflict and persecution—that is often just the beginning of another nightmare. That is caused by the so-called move-on period—the period after which the support they have been receiving from the Home Office will be terminated—which causes unnecessary problems and barriers to integration. I aim to lay out how those could be solved.
I thank Seb Klier at the Refugee Council and Jon Featonby at the British Red Cross for their regular detailed briefings and for nudging me regularly to table questions and seek debates such as this one. I pay tribute to them individually, and to the many individuals and community organisations in my constituency who do so much to welcome refugees and asylum seekers, to solve some of the problems I will explore, and to remove barriers.
Every week, the Red Cross in Bristol works with at least one new destitute refugee. Let us remember that “refugee” means a person who has received their status. I thank the Red Cross for that, but why is that happening? First, the move-on period is 28 days. In that time, a refugee must leave Home Office accommodation, move from asylum support to benefits or a job, obtain a national insurance number in order to do so, open a bank account, receive a biometric residence permit and find somewhere to live. I am in a good job, but I have to say that I would struggle with that. I think most of us would struggle.
To compound all that, refugees are often already traumatised and sometimes—although not always—struggle with English. Some are very isolated, and some are mentally unwell, either as the result of the initial trauma or, often, because of the complex and prolonged asylum process, during which they have not been able to work and have had little access to English classes. Often, they will have been confined by extreme poverty, living off just £37.75 per week. Then, suddenly, in the words of a refugee supported by Bristol Refugee Rights in my constituency,
“it is compulsory today to do everything that was forbidden yesterday”.
Back in 2014, the Red Cross became increasingly concerned about the number of destitute and new refugees requiring emergency care, partly as a result of that problem. It recommended extending the 28-day move-on period; we have been warned about this for many years. In 2017, I and colleagues in the Chamber launched the “Refugees welcome?” report, which was produced by the all-party parliamentary group on refugees following our inquiry the previous year. Among our many findings was a recommendation that the move-on period should be extended to 56 days. Thankfully, the Government took up some of our recommendations—I am grateful to them for that—but, unfortunately, not that one.
The same year, the Refugee Council published its report “Refugees without refuge”. None of the 54 respondents to its survey had secured accommodation within the 28-day move-on period. In 2018, the British Red Cross published its report “Still an ordeal”. The 26 refugees it surveyed had been left without food and shelter after receiving their status. There is not just an unacceptable high risk of extreme poverty; the move-on period creates inevitable destitution.
Just last month, Women for Refugee Women found that women left destitute are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. That is a further consequence of the move-on period. A third of the women interviewed were forced to stay in unwanted and abusive relationships. I thank Women for Refugee Women for its extraordinary hard work, but I am saddened by its findings.
Refugees, refugee organisations, local authorities, health organisations and us MPs—including Government Members—all know that the move-on period is failing to support refugees. My primary request is for the Minister to ask his colleagues to extend it from 28 to 56 days.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on the exceptional work she does in Parliament for refugees and asylum seekers. She is right to highlight the need for an extended move-on period, but does she not agree that the circumstances she describes show that we need a cross-Government approach, involving not just the Home Office but the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government? They must all come together to meet the needs of this vulnerable group.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She, too, does an enormous amount on refugee policy, as do many colleagues in the Chamber. She is absolutely right that we need a cross-departmental approach. Funnily enough, that was recommended in our report three years ago. Actually, a former Tory MP—I cannot remember his name, but it will come to me—recommended to his Government not only that there should be a cross-departmental approach but that there should be a Minister for refugees to help co-ordinate it.
The Home Office recently took some steps to provide more support for refugees. I welcome that, but their benefit is limited without a longer move-on period. The London School of Economics and the British Red Cross found that extending it to 56 days could save up to £7 million of taxpayers’ money each year. Of course, the consequences of destitution are extra costs to the public purse due to homelessness and impacts on health and employability.
What is the justification for 56 days? First, since refugees mostly are not allowed to work while waiting for an asylum decision, most of them will need, at least initially, to apply for universal credit. There is the first problem: clearly, the inbuilt 35-day minimum wait before the first day of universal credit is incompatible, by seven crucial days, with the current move-on period after someone’s asylum is over and they are granted refugee status. As I said, I have a reasonably good job and I may be able to manage for seven days, but it would be a struggle. People are suddenly put in that position, with no money, perhaps no relatives to turn to—whereas I would have that—and probably no one else to call on. Those seven crucial days can be seven days without food.
In some instances, the delay in receiving benefits may be much longer. Mariam from Women for Refugee Women gave me permission to quote her. She said:
“The asylum support stopped in January, but my benefits didn’t start for nine months. I had no money, I was lucky to have a solicitor who gave me some cash. I also relied on charities for food. Being destitute after getting asylum isn’t something I had expected.”
I know that my colleagues in the Chamber have come across that too. A cash grant—just once, upon receipt of status—would help so much. That is something else I would like the Minister to consider. Charities such as Aid Box Convoy in my constituency do wonderful work finding things such as cookers, clothes, bedding and nappies—we probably all have charities like that in our constituencies—but one small cash grant could make such a difference.
A 56-day move-on period would also align with the time local authorities are given to work with house- holds at risk of homelessness under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. That is another example of the cross-departmental work that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) called for. The Government could also encourage the establishment of a private rented sector scheme for refugees, to recognise not just the general problems that most people might face when suddenly plunged into the private rented sector, but the specific barriers faced by refugees.
Those changes might give new refugees the ability to move on rather than, as one refugee in Bristol described it to me, running from “pillar to post”. The complications of the system are compounded by a lack of Government funding and organisational capacity. Support agencies are often open only part time, and advice agencies are often full. During such a critical time, losing a week waiting to speak to the right person could make all the difference between someone being destitute and not.
That is the situation if there are minimal complications. If there is an error in someone’s biometric residence permit, which is their formal identification—even if there is an incorrect spelling, which happens—their 28 days are not automatically restarted. That is another really simple and, I would argue, cost-free change that the Minister could agree to: if a mistake is made by a Government agency, the refugee should not have to pay the price, and the 28 days should be automatically restarted.
As an example, K is a new refugee in Bristol. She fled both sectarian violence and domestic violence with her 15-year-old child. She was granted status—she is here legally—on 6 September 2019, but she contacted the Red Cross in Bristol shortly afterwards as there was a spelling mistake on her biometric residence permit. She failed to receive her updated permit by 7 October and she was at risk of homelessness. At that point, she met the homelessness prevention team at Bristol City Council, but without identification she was unable to open a bank account. The earliest she could receive an advance universal credit payment, intended to cope with such gaps, was 30 October, 54 days after receiving her refugee status. Hon. Members can see where I am going with this: 56 days would have meant she was not in destitution or at risk of destitution. Between 16 and 30 October, K and her child were destitute and, although they received support from the Red Cross, it could have been so easily avoided.
We must also change the administrative barriers that delay new refugees from moving on. Recently, another constituent and his family were granted further leave to remain. Their 28 days began and they tried to apply for local authority housing. Unfortunately, they were not sent an eviction notice from their asylum accommodation, which must be done in the form of a letter, and without that letter they could not apply for housing. My caseworkers Michelle and Sheila, whom I thank from the bottom of my heart—what they do is extraordinary, and I am sure all hon. Members present speak highly of the work that caseworkers do in our name—did all they could to speed up the process, but even so the family received the letter with just eight days to go. Their ability to live had rested on those bureaucratic nightmares. That does not do us proud. As a country we should be proud, and we have a right to be proud, of our tradition in welcoming refugees. I know Government Ministers agree. We have that right to be proud, so why let those bureaucratic nightmares creep in when they are fixable?
By comparison, resettlement schemes are a measure that the Government and everyone else should be proud of. The vulnerable persons resettlement scheme offers a fantastic model and is on target to successfully resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees. I recently met Anne James, the commissioning manager on the Syrian resettlement programme at Bristol City Council, who spoke highly of the scheme and her interaction with Government. I was really impressed by the operation and support of the initiative. For resettled refugees under such schemes, the dedicated caseworker, who supports their needs, is a lifeline. We should look to that process as a best-practice approach.
As the APPG pointed out in its report three years ago—and, to be fair, as the sector pointed out years before—the gulf between our asylum process and the resettlement process makes for a two-tier system. There are asylum seekers who are granted refugee status and are here legally, and there are those who come via the resettlement route whose status is already granted, but the route a refugee takes does not make them more or less deserving of support. Rather than making them feel welcome, the asylum process leaves new refugees fighting to overcome what feel like impossible barriers. Those barriers could be removed, and the resettlement scheme shows us how we could do that.
There are other fantastic models open for adoption by the Home Office and the Government more widely. Colleagues could talk at length about the community sponsorship scheme, the city of sanctuary approach and other community and local initiatives that provide wonderful and welcome examples of how we can do this really well. My constituents want to welcome refugees who have a right to be here, and I am sure the Minister’s do, too. I am sure most of us also want to prevent, as far as possible, situations in which desperate people feel that they have to take dangerous journeys because they have no alternative, having been cramped in a refugee camp among millions of people in countries such as Lebanon, Greece or Turkey. They feel absolutely desperate, so it is no wonder that some make dangerous journeys to countries that they feel might welcome them. We should be proud that we are seen as a welcoming country, but we should make every effort to allow more of those safe and legal routes offered by resettlement.
As I draw my remarks to a close, I have a couple more requests of the Minister. The Government could change by regulation, and very quickly, the right for asylum seekers to work. At the moment, it is limited. After six months of applying for refugee status, some can apply for employment in certain categories, which unless I am very much mistaken still includes that of ballet dancer. To my not very certain knowledge, there are not many people setting out from Syria saying, “I want to be a ballet dancer.” These people have got skills and want to work from the moment they get status, but if they face prolonged delays in the asylum process, that weakens their skills.
Ministers have also talked to me about wanting people to be able to return home when conditions are safe. We could talk about refoulement, preventing further traumatisation and the damage of sending people home when it is not safe, but, if it is safe for people to return to their country of origin, we want them to have kept up their skills, not lost them through prolonged periods of unemployment. Alternatively, the Home Office could meet its own service standard of six months, and do so properly, efficiently, fairly and transparently. That would help. The Government could also establish the scheme I mentioned on private renting. They could provide cash grants and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston, there could be co-ordination between Departments.
The moment someone receives their refugee status should be one of celebration. It should be a time when refugees feel able to move on, if possible, from the horrors they have left and the difficulties they have had to face. Instead, all too often, the contradictions of Government policy and the cuts to various services—I have not even mentioned cuts to English language services—leave refugees facing new problems such as homelessness and destitution, and, as Women for Refugee Women has said, vulnerable to harms such as exploitation and abuse. We are and should always remain proud of being a welcoming country to people fleeing conflict, but we have a choice about how we treat people. We can choose to treat them with dignity or to put them at risk of destitution. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Seven colleagues wish to speak and we will start the winding-up speeches at 3.30 pm, so please share the time at about six or seven minutes each.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and look forward to doing so again in future. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on securing this important debate, which gives us an opportunity to speak up for those refugees who have received an asylum decision, because they are experiencing difficulties.
We are not providing enough support to asylum seekers after they receive their decision, and the results can be disastrous. In particular, I will talk about the incompatibility of universal credit and the asylum support system. We know that, in its current form, universal credit is deeply flawed, especially in its ability to cope with applications from more vulnerable individuals. Whenever I have met refugees, whether in communities or detention centres in the UK, or overseas in my former role as shadow Secretary of State for International Development, I have always been struck by their sheer resilience. That should not blind us to the fact that they are among the most vulnerable people in the world. They have not only been uprooted from their lives and families but have often experienced extreme trauma.
My constituent Zeynep fled torture to claim asylum in the UK. After a long-drawn-out process, she was finally granted asylum in October last year. With the help of a charity, she applied for universal credit, but when her asylum support was withdrawn 28 days later, her claim was still pending. She was left with no support and quickly forced to rely on food banks and handouts to survive. The acceptance of her asylum application should have been a moment of celebration; instead, it became the moment she was pushed into absolute poverty.
Zeynep’s is not a case in which individual errors were made, leading to delay. The asylum support and universal credit systems worked exactly as they were supposed to. Universal credit claimants must wait a minimum of five weeks before receiving their first payment, which means there is a deliberate gap between the end of asylum support and that payment. In the best-case scenario, that means enduring weeks without money for basic necessities such as food, rent or heating. That is the best-case scenario. The reality of universal credit is: never expect the best-case scenario.
A Salvation Army study published in 2018 found that only 14.5% of people who applied for universal credit did not have any problems. It found that a key barrier to claiming universal credit was an inability to apply digitally, and a lack of knowledge about how to claim.
People who have recently been granted asylum are particularly likely to experience those difficulties, and therefore have greater difficulty claiming universal credit. For many asylum seekers, having received a positive asylum decision, the first thing they need to do is claim universal credit. They need the essential support of basic funds while they look for work or if they fall ill, as well as for paying rent. If they have had to scrape by on the tiny amount provided through asylum support, they will urgently need more support, but they tell me and many of my colleagues that the system is not fit for purpose.
The current system is failing refugees, just as it fails many other vulnerable groups. The acceptance of an asylum claim is often the end of a long and difficult journey, which we must acknowledge. Being recognised as a refugee, and being given the right to live and work in the UK, should be a moment of celebration, but the risk of poverty and homelessness faced by refugees following such a decision means that, for many, it is a moment of great risk and often hardship. I hope the Minister will agree with me that the current situation is untenable and must change.
We need to listen to those on the frontline, including experts such as the British Red Cross and others, when they tell us that asylum support must be extended to at least 56 days. We need to honour our international obligations not just to allow refugees in, but to ensure that they can survive, and access food and shelter. We are not currently doing that. Will the Minister agree to look again at the support provided to those granted asylum when they claim universal credit, and at removing the barriers they face when making those claims?
When we welcome refugees into this country, pointing them in the direction of a food bank must not be the first thing we do. We are one of the richest countries in the world. We can do better than that, and, for the sake of those who come to our country seeking a better life, we must do better.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate with you in the Chair, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on securing the debate, and on the characteristically powerful way in which she opened it and made the point so effectively. She is right, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), that gaining refugee status should be a moment for celebration, but that for too many it is a ticking clock towards homelessness and destitution.
Sheffield was the UK’s first city of sanctuary. We made a very positive statement that we wanted to welcome those fleeing persecution and war, and to give them a good reception in our city. I am proud that that movement has spread all over the country. We have some of the most organised and best co-ordinated support charities and organisations helping refugees and asylum seekers, but even in our position the 28-day move-on period is not sufficient to prevent homelessness and destitution.
In preparation for today’s debate, I spoke to two local charities about the issues that refugees in Sheffield face at the end of the move-on period: City of Sanctuary, which provides general support, and Nomad, a charity that particularly helps those who face homelessness and that tells me it has seen a steady increase in the number of refugees who are forced to become rough sleepers.
As my colleagues have indicated, there is much that could be done. City of Sanctuary has called for the Government’s urgent guide for refugees to be provided in a range of languages, because many of those granted refugee status are likely to face language barriers in accessing services. It is not on that the guide is currently available only in English.
Refugees also face barriers when opening bank accounts, which they need immediately for payment of wages or to gain access to social security. Banks do not provide interpreters, and many newly granted refugees do not have a support network of trusted English speakers who can help. City of Sanctuary also found that online forms and mobile banking apps do not recognise occupancy status, which is often the situation for those who have been living in asylum accommodation. I ask the Minister, will he commit to working with the banks to resolve those issues?
Internet access is also a real issue. These days almost everything, including universal credit applications, has to be done online, but mobile internet access costs money. There are some places where free internet services are available, but newly recognised refugees may well not know about them.
There are other issues too, but many of the problems come down to the short move-on period. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West pointed out, asylum seekers have not had the right to work before being granted status, so they have not built up savings because they have not had an income to support themselves. There is cross-party concern about changing the right to work. In the last Parliament, the former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Caroline Spelman, led a debate in this Chamber about seeking to change the rules, so that the right to work was granted. The Minister should advocate for that in debates at the Home Office.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton pointed out, there is a real incompatibility between the length of the move-on period and the five-week wait for universal credit. The Red Cross found that 65% of refugees who were supported to apply for universal credit were left with no financial support; the proportion of those who were not supported would be even higher. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West pointed out, a simple measure, such as a cash grant at the point of being granted status, could make an enormous difference.
City of Sanctuary in Sheffield told me that even for those classed as a priority need, 28 days is not long enough, in many cases, for local authorities to find suitable accommodation. Refugee families have been required to stay in unsafe and unsuitable places. Nomad told me that because of that, some refugees who are placed in emergency accommodation decide that taking their chance on the street as rough sleepers is a better option. For those not classed as a priority need, the only option is private rented accommodation, which is difficult, if not impossible, to access without a universal credit payment and the means to put down a deposit, so we return to the same issues again.
City of Sanctuary found that some refugees have received penalty notices from the NHS, despite being in receipt of universal credit. I hope the Minister will consider taking that up with his colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care. That reflects a general point that the Home Office needs to work more closely with local authorities and with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that newly granted refugees start getting the support they need as soon as possible.
The key point that has come out of today’s debate is the pressing need to extend the move-on period for people granted refugee status from 28 days to 56 days.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir David.
I will start by commenting on what has been said so eloquently by my hon. Friends about the idea that universal credit happens within five weeks, or that 28 days would be enough to get accommodation, if it were needed. If someone were to present themselves as homeless to Birmingham City Council, or just as needing housing, not necessarily as a priority need, it would probably take 18 months before they were given anywhere they could actually live. When my brother applied for universal credit, he decided to grow his beard for the time it took before he got a payment; he looked like Rasputin before he got any funding. That puts it into some perspective.
I want to talk specifically about the effect on refugee women, which I am sure will surprise absolutely no one, and to bring to the Minister’s attention the findings of the “Will I ever be safe?” report by Women for Refugee Women. I think it is vital that this element is included in this debate. The women featured in the report are here in the Gallery listening to our debate. The report details the cases of 106 asylum-seeking and refugee women. They left their countries for a variety of reasons, but around half the women said that they had experienced violence at the hands of the state authorities, 42% had been tortured and almost one third had been raped by soldiers, prisoners, guards or the police in their own country. More than one third of the women had been raped in the private sphere, with others fleeing forced marriage, forced prostitution and other forms of gender-based violence. More than one third of the destitute women were forced into unwanted relationships because of their destitution in this period that we are talking about.
When faced with an impossible situation, very often in those cases the women end up back in dangerous and violent relationships, or exploited as part of a pattern of street homelessness. Certainly, something that I have seen time and again while working with victims of human trafficking is how the constant merry-go-round of destitution for that group of women leaves them severely vulnerable to the people who come along and exploit them for sex. One quarter of the women who were spoken to in the report—bear in mind that suffering sexual violence was part of the reason they fled—were raped or sexually abused when sleeping outside or in other people’s homes.
When I used to work with asylum-seeking women, who at that time were largely from Sierra Leone, in Birmingham, it was often described as moving “from one hell to another”, and that also seems to be the case with this destitution gap. We see that one third of women raped in their home country are then raped again here in the UK. My hon. Friend highlighted the case of Mariam and how long it had taken her to gain access to benefits. That sounded much more realistic than the timeframes laid out, and much closer to my understanding, as a constituency Member of Parliament, of how long it takes to actually access benefits. She waited nine months to get her benefits.
I want to tell a tiny bit of Mariam’s story, so that she does not just become a person who had to wait a little while for benefits and so that we can feel who she is. I will read it in her words:
“I’m from Fumayu in Somalia and came to the UK in November 2008 after fleeing the war. I’m from a minority clan called Bajuni… I escaped the war in Somalia twice. The first time was in the early 1990s. Militiamen broke into our family home and raped me. They raped my daughter Amina as well. She was just 15. The men shot her dead after, and they killed my son too.”
She fled originally to Kenya and then eventually here to the UK. She applied for asylum the day after she arrived. She says:
“Because I had no money, the Home Office put me in a hostel where I got two meals a day.”
Mariam was rehoused in Middlesbrough. She was scared, and the interpreter brought in for her asylum interview spoke Swahili, not Kibajuni, which is the language she speaks. She was made to speak in a different language and found it difficult to explain herself. The Home Office refused her asylum claim. She was eventually granted her benefits, but, as has already been said, her asylum support stopped in January and her benefits did not start for nine months. The Home Office put Mariam in a dirty hotel. She had no money, and she was lucky that she had a solicitor who gave her some cash and that she was able to rely for some things on local charities.
That cannot be the system that the Minister hopes to see for a woman multiply raped, whose children have been killed in front of her. I ask him to consider all the things requested by my hon. Friend.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a great honour to serve under your guidance, Sir David. I pay tribute to all those who have spoken so far in the debate, and in particular to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who has led the debate so very well, and not only today.
It is important that we focus on that move-on period for migrants, because it is more than just an administrative wrinkle; it is a deep injustice. I am sure the Minister is now fully aware of that. It has a colossal impact on the lives of incredibly vulnerable people, such as those we have already heard about this afternoon. As asylum seekers arrive in Britain, often after long and harrowing journeys just to get here in the first place, they face a battle to gain refugee status, overcoming language barriers and confusing paperwork, and persevering through any delays and mishaps along the way.
Throughout all that, of course, they are denied the opportunity to work. That is not the principal purpose of this debate, but I would love the Minister to take seriously the point that it is not just morally wrong to deny those seeking asylum the right to work, but really foolish. To give people the right to work while they are seeking asylum is to give them the ability to integrate into the community, to improve their language skills, to provide for themselves and their families, and to be in a far better place to contribute fully once their claim is accepted.
At the moment, as the Minister knows, a tiny minority of those with very specialist skills—they pretty much have to be a brain surgeon—have the right to exercise their skills in this country. Why should not people who are seeking asylum have the right to earn, to work and to support themselves?
Kate Green
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no evidence that those countries that offer the right to work to asylum seekers suffer from some perceived pull factor? People flee their home country because of danger and persecution; they do not flee their home country because they think they will get a better job when they are coming into a hostile asylum system. There is no evidence at all that those countries that allow a right to work receive flows of asylum seekers on a scale that other countries do not.
Tim Farron
Absolutely spot on; I am grateful for that intervention, and I hope that the Minister will take the time just to check with his civil servants that that is absolutely true. There is no pull factor associated with those countries. The majority of civilised countries do exactly what we are asking for and allow people to work while they are seeking asylum. The issue we are talking about is the push factor, not the pull factor. Why do people leave in the first place?
Focusing on the purpose of this debate, we see that a successful verdict is given to many of those who seek asylum. As has already been said, they may have received formal refugee status, but the relief and celebration are cut short as they realise that their newly achieved status is actually a kind of 28-day ultimatum: 28 days until their asylum support is stopped, just 28 days of accommodation and 28 days of a weekly allowance. In a vast number of cases, this is 28 days’ countdown to destitution. Many of those whom we see sleeping on the streets of this city are people for whom that 28-day period has expired.
Imagine, Sir David, being given 28 days to find accommodation in a foreign country to which you have fled to escape war or persecution, not forgetting that you have not been allowed to work until this point, so therefore you also need to find a job during that time—either that, or apply for universal credit. Universal credit’s rules have made it almost inevitable that refugees will be left without support; an automatic 35-day wait to receive their first payment is completely incompatible with the 28 days that refugees have to access it. Then, of course, there will be the complexities of the paperwork and documentation required to gain access to universal credit in the first place.
The safeguards in the universal credit system to ensure that claimants are not left without support are often not accessed by refugees. Either they are unaware that they are eligible, or they do not even have a bank account to receive the support. Under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, local authorities are given a 56-day period to work with households at risk of homelessness. For refugees to receive support for only a pitiful 28 days is utterly ludicrous; it is almost designed to take desperate people, who ran to us for sanctuary and safety, and plunge them into bewildered misery as they are forced on charity or, increasingly, on to the streets.
I am pretty sure we all agree that human beings deserve to be treated with dignity. We as a society, as a Government, as a country, have already accepted that people in such situations deserve protection under the refugee convention, yet the current system is a far cry from recognising that in practice.
Refugees are forced to sleep rough, work illegally or face appalling exploitation in order to meet their basic needs while jumping through bureaucratic hoops to access money, accommodation, employment, education and so on. Will the Minister commit to providing refugees in the UK with the respect and dignity they deserve from day one of being recognised as a refugee, and to giving them what they need to build their lives in a new place and flourish in and contribute to our society?
In many ways the solution is simple: extend the move-on period to at least 56 days, which would cover the break in support and give refugees the best chance of establishing a stable and productive life here. Extending the move-on period to 56 days would have a financial benefit of between £4 million and £7 million each year for the taxpayer. Local authorities would save £2.1 million through the decreased use of temporary accommodation and up to £3.2 million through reduced rough sleeping. Alongside that, we must remove the administrative barriers that newly recognised refugees face. They need to be able to open bank accounts and receive the right documentation, and they need support to help them navigate the move-on period, apply for universal credit and obtain secure accommodation.
I recognise that there are complexities around which Department the matter falls under, but that is no excuse. While more and more families find themselves destitute and desperate, unable to meet even their basic needs, we need decisive action to end the tragedy of refugee destitution. Will the Treasury and the Government take steps today to end the departmental deadlock and extend the 28-day waiting period to 56 days? That would reduce benefit claims and increase the productivity of refugees in this country. More importantly, it would enable them to live in safety and dignity. It will save them from further pain and trauma on top of all that they have experienced already. With a simple change in policy, we can prevent destitution and save money. It is blindingly, obviously, the right thing to do. Will the Government do it?
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on securing this important debate. I am delighted to be able to contribute and stand up for the women, children and families whom I have supported recently. Up to December, I was running a refugee support project called Love to Learn in the borough of Wandsworth. I pay tribute to everyone working in the team and also to other local organisations: CARAS, the South London Refugee Association and Wandsworth Welcomes Refugees. I want to talk about community services and widen the debate to consider other ways in which we can support those who have been granted refugee status, but need more support to be able to live here.
First, let us consider housing support for young people leaving care. Asylum seekers might have come here unaccompanied. When they leave care, they often fall into what has been described to me, by someone who came recently from Eritrea, as a dark hole. As was mentioned earlier, a cash grant is needed for the essentials in the accommodation that they might be provided with, from the most basic things such as sheets and a duvet to a cooker. I have had to drive to pick up and take basic goods over to help young people. Not having a bank account is one reason why they could not buy goods. Getting a bank account is really hard. There is also the issue of internet access. I have sat in local cafés with young people because I have a smartphone and am able to access the services that they need. After leaving care, no support at all is given.
The second area of concern is mental health support. According to the Refugee Council, 61% of asylum seekers experience serious mental distress, which does not change when they receive their status. Refugees are five times more likely to have mental health needs than those in the UK population. That is just an acknowledgement of the situation that many people have faced, and the reason why they have had to come here to ask for refuge. Mental health support especially fails young people who leave care and need support. I have heard that the threshold for needing support is not one suicide attempt, but more than one, which is absolutely shocking. People need to know how to access services and support.
Community services provide an important bridge between need and the people who can provide for those needs. For a start, we need to be joined up so that people do not need community support to access services. Also, we should support community projects that enable refugees to claim the things that they are entitled to.
The third area is education support. Many children from a refugee background, including the children of refugees, need additional support to be able to thrive in the education system. Many refugees have faced discrimination, housing issues, language problems, and trauma from the situation that they have faced, which also impedes their children’s ability to thrive. Education, health and care plans are only in English, which could be easily rectified. If they were provided across the country in different languages, such an easy change would make a big difference. There is no translation for children in need. There is a confusing system and refugees do not know how the English system works. They find that they need to fight for their rights, which other parents already understand. Community services such as Love to Learn can provide a bridge, but it would be even better if we did not need it.
The fourth area is English for speakers of other languages, especially ESOL services with a creche, which enables women to attend. Since 2009, Government funding for ESOL courses has been cut by 60%, and the wider adult skills budget, which people go on to—they have their ESOL and need to go on to the next thing—has been cut by 35%. In the Government’s integrated communities action plan, published in February 2019—I have a copy of it here—boosting English language skills is recognised as absolutely key to community integration. The plan states:
“Speaking and understanding English means you are less vulnerable to isolation, improves your work prospects, increases your chance of friendships with people from different backgrounds and allows you to feel more confident when accessing local services.”
So we have an action plan that, from my experience in Wandsworth, is not being funded or delivered. Will the Minister return to the plan and see whether it is being implemented, because it is absolutely fundamental for refugees?
I agree with the Members who spoke earlier about extending the move-on period to 56 days and giving refugees the right to work. I would add that support to community services such as those in my borough of Wandsworth, which already support refugees but could do much more with relatively little funding, is essential. We are fortunate in this country to be able to welcome new neighbours, colleagues and friends to our communities. It says a lot about us as a country that we can do that—we can take pride in it—and provide refuge to people who desperately need it. We must keep doing better, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is important and fundamental to building integrated, happy communities together.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) for setting the scene. I always enjoy the debates she secures, because she is so passionate and her voice is always so strong as well. She says the right things and it is a pleasure to be involved in any of her debates. She speaks with knowledge, passion and interest, as have other speakers.
I am concerned about asylum decisions. This is something we need to alter. We want the Minister to give us the response we wish to hear. We look forward to that with trepidation. We all know that whenever we move house, it takes time to get our affairs in order. Most people take out a standardised three-month mail re-route with the post office, on the understanding that things do not always go as smoothly as we would like. The situation for refugees is more difficult.
I have been very vocal in my opposition to the five-week delay in universal credit, which in reality is a two-month gap for many people to get all the information they need for the official documentation. To expect someone to apply for their social security number, which is a necessity for universal credit, and to then complete the process within the 28 days that the asylum payment continues is absurd. It is simply not feasible or fundamentally achievable. Indeed, I would be very interested to hear how many people have successfully managed to navigate the process within 28 days. I frequently deal with the benefits and universal credit system, and in my opinion the number is very few. I do not want to put the Minister on the spot, but it would be good to hear what the numbers are: I suspect they are small, if there are any such people at all. My constituents find it difficult to get their tenancies, sick lines, past earnings, bank statements, identification documents and child support payments in order, and their first language is English—never mind starting all that from scratch in a second language. The difficulties are real. They are enormous for people who must negotiate those things in an unfamiliar language. If we believe that people are in need of asylum, I believe that we accept that it is our responsibility to provide it. That does not mean abandoning them to a system that it is difficult for us, never mind them, to understand. It would seem logical to offer every bit of support we can.
An example of a slightly different situation, but which none the less shows how the system works, involves a lady who was born here and moved to Canada and raised her children there. She came home in her 70s after her husband died, to be with family and friends who would give her support. We had to fight to get any bank to give her a bank account, despite the fact that she was the recipient of a British pension and had a national insurance number. It took us weeks, if not months, to get her a bank account, and I personally vouched for her on the strength of her family connections, as they lived in Newtownards and I knew them. It was a necessity to get the bank account for universal credit payments to be made. That example involved a British citizen who ticked all the boxes. Yet she had real difficulty in getting to the end of her trials and tribulations.
I am thankful to the many charities that do all they can to help families who need help. My office, like, I suspect, other MPs’ offices, is a referral point for the food bank, which has been the difference between a full and empty belly for refugees in my constituency. That is how drastic it is. It is as serious as that when people have to find their way through the system. Crisis has said that in 2016-17, 478 people, or 7% of new clients approaching it for help that year, were having difficulty with transition from the asylum payment. We should remember that those were only the people who contacted that charity. The figure should probably be multiplied by a large number, if people who went to other charities were included. Those were people who were forced to flee their homes and support systems and who landed in the country knowing no one and often not having a good grasp of the language. We simply need to do better for them and we look to the Minister to give us the answers that our constituents, and the refugees, need to hear.
We have been fortunate in my constituency to have five Syrian refugee families who came to our area. I met them as their MP, as is my duty, although I would do so irrespective of whether I was the MP and help in any way I could. I will tell you the truth, Sir David, and give you a real example. I do not mean any disrespect to anyone and am not trying to point the finger at anyone, but it was the local church groups, which got together—and particularly the Link group that brought them together—that helped the Housing Executive to get them some rental accommodation. The church groups, and that one in particular, got clothes for them and their children, and food as well as accommodation. We use the Thriving Life church for the food bank. Local church groups also got the furniture to furnish their homes for them. They had nothing. Those people come with nothing and start from a base that none of us ever starts from. We are fortunate to have had years of work, and family connections, but they had none.
The menfolk—they were the earners when they were in Syria—were accomplished tradesmen. They could have done carpentry or electrical work. Those were their trades. They just needed to start to do that. Another massive problem was language and having someone to interact with them. The church groups, again, did something about that. Another problem was education for the children. Fortunately the children were of an age at which they had some grasp of English, and some were fairly fluent. We got them into local schools. I am sorry if I am rambling on a wee bit, but those things happened not because of Government and the universal credit system, but because local people took the initiative. It was really important.
We need to extend support to allow refugees peace of mind while they go through the quagmire of universal credit or getting a job. Many jobs pay monthly in arrears, which puts them in the same position. They are behind the eight ball—even worse than anyone else, it seems. Charities and church groups are wonderful but we need to send the right message and either resolve the universal credit timing, which I have been pushing for since its inception, or acknowledge the failure in our system and not allow vulnerable people to be the ones who suffer. I support the extension of payment for refugees to 56 days and ask the Minister to consider that. I say to him gently and sincerely that we are here because we all feel the same on behalf of refugees.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and congratulate her on securing the debate and on another brilliant speech, as well as on the brilliant work she does as chair of the APPG on refugees—including the “Refugees Welcome?” report. We are fortunate to have her chairing the group. I pay tribute, in fact, to every Member who has taken part in the debate. Every speech was excellent and showed huge knowledge. I mean no disrespect when I say that almost certainly that is partly because many of the same Members have been making similarly excellent points in excellent speeches for years on end. We now need the Government to listen and to act on some of the advice that is being provided.
I pay tribute also to organisations such as the British Red Cross, the Refugee Council, the Scottish Refugee Council, Crisis and the local organisations that Members have mentioned, which work at the coalface supporting the people we have been speaking about, and engaging in advocacy work on behalf of those vulnerable individuals. Without them we would not be able to make the case we are making today.
I think that this is the first chance I have had to welcome the Minister to his new post at the Home Office. I am never quite sure whether to congratulate or commiserate with those who are sent to the Home Office. He has a tough job ahead of him and I wish him all the best in it. If he is ever looking for constructive advice and help, I am happy to meet him at any point.
The debate highlights an absolute tragedy. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) was right to say that every grant of refugee status should be something to celebrate. It is another human being who is protected under international law as a person at risk of persecution in their home country. What a tragedy it is that, after we have taken that step and stepped up to our moral and legal obligations, the system works in such a way as to make the refugee homeless and destitute immediately. It is a tragedy and disgrace, and, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) said, we are a rich country and can and must do much better. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, all sorts of statistics show that the situation is not just a few isolated examples of folk falling through the safety net. It is a huge, widespread problem. It does not need to be like this, and many of the key problems could be solved simply by extending the move-on period. That is not a complete solution, but it would take us 90% of the way there.
I am sure that the Government will talk about liaison officers, post-grant appointments, signposting, integration funding and attempts to ensure that national insurance numbers are issued as part of the process of issuing biometric residence cards. That is all welcome and necessary, although even those processes need to be improved on. However, the overwhelming evidence is that it does not come remotely close to fixing the problems that have been highlighted. All the help in the world will not alter the fact that 28 days is insufficient time for moving on. There seems to be a fundamental failure to grasp that the moving-on process is a gargantuan task for many individuals, given what they have been put through. We are dealing, in many cases, with incredibly vulnerable people. By definition they are here because they have fled persecution in a different country, and all sorts of barriers can stem from that, including language, mental health issues—something that the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) referred to—and a fear of interacting with the authorities. Twenty-eight days is simply too short a time. As a result, already scarred lives are even more damaged by our Government’s failure to deal with this in a comprehensive manner.
The impact of that failure does not last only a few days; it can set back integration by months, years and even for life. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) gave powerful examples of that, particularly relating to women. At the stroke of a pen, Ministers could take a significant step toward fixing this by making the move-on period long enough for refugees to be able, with proper support, to navigate the system and establish themselves here.
Hon. Members set out a whole host of problems with the move-on period, which I will refer to briefly. First and foremost, 28 days is not only too short but is totally incompatible with the 35 days required, in theory, to access universal credit, and is inconsistent with the 56-day provision the Government put in their own homelessness legislation. Secondly, we heard about all the challenges in getting the necessary documentation to open bank accounts and to access social security and accommodation. The Government have taken steps in the right direction, but there is still an awful long way to go, and a joined-up approach is very much missing.
There is a lack of knowledge in some institutions—we heard about banks, but also local authorities and jobcentres—about what evidence is needed, and even about how to apply tests such as the habitual residence test. I am not sure whether problems accessing integration loans have been referred to, but there are still huge challenges relating to awareness and insufficient loans, particularly for those who might want to access accommodation in the private rented sector. As several Members said, extending the move-on period could save the Government £7 million because of reductions in rough sleeping and reduced local authority spend on temporary accommodation. It would also save the Scottish Government a small fortune in the amount that they have to pay out through Scottish welfare fund crisis grants.
Fifty-six days is the minimum period recommended by those at the coalface, and the reasoning was set out in detail by the hon. Member for Bristol West. My party is absolutely behind that, and we would also support flexibility for appropriate cases involving longer transitions. Why end asylum support before we know that the first universal credit payment has actually been made? The call we make is based on evidence from those working with people making the transition and on experience with constituents. If the Minister does not support 56 days, how does he justify 28 days? Will he explain why the Home Office thinks 28 days appropriate? I have completely failed to find any explanation as to why that is deemed an appropriate move-on period.
A whole host of other related issues feed into the problem of post-decision support. They could all probably command a debate in their own right, so I will refer to them in passing. Hon. Members have done a good job of explaining why they are so important. First, asylum decision-making times seem to be growing out of control. We also heard about the right to work, and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) in particular detailed how significant that is. Clearly, people will be less likely to require support or to fall into destitution if they have already been working by the time they have their decision. It is way past time for lifting the ban on the right to work.
We also need to look at the whole dispersal system, the huge delays in paying asylum support and the paltry levels of support that we give to asylum seekers. We need to recognise that they are hugely disproportionately placed in areas of already high deprivation, and we then pay them a pittance in support—£5.39 per day—none of which aids integration or makes a subsequent transition period smoother. Ultimately, the UK Government’s whole approach to integration needs to be looked at again. It seems almost as if it has been designed around the half of asylum applicants who ultimately will not be recognised as refugees. It is almost as if they are attempting to make the system as miserable as possible, to deter applications. We should design the system around the half of applicants who are refugees and will eventually be recognised as refugees. The aim should be integration from day one, which is the approach at the centre of the Scottish Government’s integration strategy.
As others have said, the Home Office’s approach means a two-tier system in practice, with a different approach to resettled refugees and refugees who come through the UK asylum process. I accept that the approach to resettled refugees cannot just be cut and pasted and applied to those who have come through the process here, but there are all sorts of examples of good practice that could be taken from the resettlement programme and applied to those who have gone through the system. As Members have said, one example is the up-front cash grant of £300 per person for resettled refugees while they wait for universal credit.
In conclusion, as I said at the outset, it is hugely frustrating that these issues have persisted for ages. Charities and parliamentary Committees have been reporting on this for years on end. I have a small worry that things might actually get worse before they get better. The hon. Member for Putney was among those highlighting the importance of funding for community organisations. As I understand it, EU asylum, migration and integration funding, which supports services such as the Scottish Refugee Council’s integration service, is due to end in September. It is important to know what the Government will do to replace that funding. More fundamentally, we need the Minister to agree that the position is completely unacceptable and that urgent action is required. More tweaks will not suffice. Some might be important, but we need the move-on period to be extended, as advocated by every single hon. Member who has spoken so far.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
I apologise for running in like a bat out of hell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on securing the debate and hon. Members who have spoken.
The toxic debate surrounding immigration has meant that there are increasingly fewer people in positions of power to speak up for the most vulnerable in our society, asylum seekers among them. In the clamour to appear tough on immigration, we have lost that once proud British tradition of accepting into this country those in most need—one example we hear often is that of the Kindertransport and our noble Friend Lord Alf Dubs.
Refugees should absolutely be welcome here, but at the moment it seems that we refuse to treat them with dignity and humanity. We must remember that they do not choose where they were born, the political issues that occur in their country or the situations that arise that mean they have to flee. They should not be held to account for that; rather, we should receive them with open arms.
The Government seem to want to stop at nothing to maintain their hostile environment; they have even suggested that, in some cases, they would deny legitimate asylum claims which, of course, would be against the 1951 refugee convention. The Government’s focus on deterrence, rather than on establishing safe and legal routes, is an expression of that, and they should be deeply ashamed of it. As we have heard, it has been left mostly to faith and community organisations to fill the gap that the Government should be filling. They do an absolutely fantastic job, but it is simply not their job, and they do not have the resources to continue doing it.
We have heard many people touch on the right to work, and I am proud that it is the Labour party’s policy, as well as to establish safe and legal routes, to allow asylum seekers the right to work after six months. Commentators wax lyrical about asylum seekers being a drain on resources, but we refuse to let them work. As I said, people do not come here because they want handouts. A lot of them have skills to work and should be given the opportunity to do so. In working, they would reduce that so-called bill that people talk about and give back to the community. They want to work and to integrate into society, but denying them the right to work does not allow that. The Government also said that they want to curb modern slavery, but these restrictions on the right to work really undermine that so-called policy.
On ESOL, we argue that people should speak English, but we maintain that the Government’s policy is shameful and treats those claiming asylum as though they were on immigration bail. These measures prevent young people from accessing education, including ESOL classes. Two years ago, three young men who came here as unaccompanied minors from Eritrea committed suicide. Imagine travelling all that way here, to safety—in terrible conditions and at the mercy of people traffickers—only to feel so unsafe that, once they had arrived in what was meant to be a place of safety, they wanted to commit suicide. That stands to reason, given the way in which they were treated. They felt so insecure about the length of time it was taking the Home Office to come to a decision that they felt that they had no option but to kill themselves. Instead of the Government supporting people better, we seem to be handing over our services to private companies, including Serco and G4S. We give millions and millions of pounds to those private companies, which continue to fail. Even companies that have defrauded the Government are left to provide housing and other resources. Instead of giving that money to local authorities, which I think would do better at providing housing, we see that a lot of complaints have been received about the housing—it is really poor housing. At the end of the day, local authorities are responsible for the integration of asylum seekers, and the money would be better spent by them for the whole community, particularly in a climate in which things are being whipped up and a lot of the time not a lot is going back into quite under-privileged communities.
The mistakes made by the Government in relation to applications continue to be a disgrace and ruin lives. We talk about all the money that is wasted on immigration and asylum, but I argue that we continue to do things such as detain and deport asylum seekers and victims of trafficking and sexual violence—something that the Government said that we would not do—and every single time we detain someone and keep them in a detention centre, that is wasting money. It is giving money again to the same private companies.
As has been demonstrated, the main point of this debate is to ask the Minister to explain why we have the 28-day rule. Why will we not extend the period to 56 days? Twenty-eight seems to be quite an arbitrary number. The Minister has heard again and again about how it eventually leaves people homeless and destitute and ends up creating a greater cost for the Government. What would it actually cost if we were to extend the period of support to 56 days? I wonder whether the Minister could calculate whether that would cost as much as the Home Office tends to pay out for its mistakes in relation to immigration claims.
We have a legal and moral obligation to those who claim asylum, but daily we seem not to meet that, so what I would like to ask the Minister overall is when the Government will stop treating asylum seekers as second-class beings and if and when they will stop treating them as if claiming asylum is a crime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time in two days, Sir David. No doubt there will be many future occasions as well.
I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on securing today’s debate and opening it with such a thoughtful but also passionate speech. She has for a long time been a powerful and persuasive campaigner and advocate on these issues. The Government might not always agree completely with everything that she says, but on many occasions we do, and I am grateful to her for raising these issues in Parliament and for doing that in such a well considered and thoughtful manner. Cases are always much more persuasive when presented in the way that she has demonstrated today, and I am grateful to her for raising this important subject in the way she has.
As the spokesman for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), said, I am extremely new in this role. I was appointed to the Home Office, in addition to the Ministry of Justice, only two or three weeks ago, so I am getting rapidly up to speed with these issues, and it has been very useful to hear everything that hon. Members have said today. However, I am a Member of Parliament who represents Croydon, and many hon. Members will know that one of the Home Office’s major centres for handling asylum applications is Lunar House in the London Borough of Croydon. In fact, Croydon has, along with Kent, I think, the highest number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. From my own constituency casework, therefore, I am very familiar with many of the issues that have been raised about asylum in general and UASCs in particular. Croydon was also the first borough to roll out universal credit fully, so I have had a lot of experience as a constituency Member of Parliament of that as well.
Let me talk a bit about asylum in general, before turning to some of the specific points raised today. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bristol West, said that this country has a proud and long history of welcoming refugees to these shores. In particular, when the Syrian crisis occurred four or five years ago, we set up the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, which I think has worked extremely well. We set an ambition, an aim, a target of resettling 20,000 people, mostly from Syria or from camps on the borders of Syria, directly in the UK, and we are, I think, extremely close to reaching the 20,000 level; I expect we will reach it in a matter of a few weeks. That scheme designed to help the most vulnerable people imaginable—people who have suffered terrible atrocities in Syria—has worked very effectively.
In relation to asylum more generally, there were 34,000 claims for asylum last year. The number has been going up for the last few years. Last year we made just under 20,000—19,480—grants of asylum, humanitarian protection or other forms of long-term leave. More than half were for asylum. I think that 20,000 per year is a number that we can point to with pride as a country that wants to look after people who are fleeing persecution. The figure of 34,000—the number of people who claimed asylum last year—is not the highest in Europe, but is one of the highest in Europe; it is certainly in the top four numbers in Europe. The fact that people are coming here in such large numbers, often travelling first through other safe European countries such as France, Germany and Italy, shows quite a high level of confidence among those who choose to come here. That is not to be complacent or to dismiss any of the points raised, which I will come to, but in itself it does show that people seeking refugee status recognise that the UK is somewhere that takes its obligations very seriously indeed. That is why, as I said, they often travel through safe European countries to come here. Clearly, under the Dublin convention, people are supposed to claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach.
In relation to financial support for the asylum-seeking community, the cost of supporting asylum seekers is just under £1 billion—it is about £800 million—a year, and approximately 50,000 people are being supported, so I feel that from a financial perspective, quite a lot is being done to support this vulnerable community. They are vulnerable in the ways that hon. Members very eloquently described.
I hope that those remarks have set the scene for the United Kingdom’s very significant and profound commitment to supporting refugees. I shall turn now to the specific question about the 28 days. I would like to talk a bit about some of the things that we are doing to mitigate the impacts that have been described today and then discuss the 28 days versus 56 days.
I think that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) was Immigration Minister, there was a debate on this topic in which some of these issues were aired. Since then, quite a few practical steps have been taken to try to make things as easy as possible for refugees in the 28-day period following the grant of their status. Let me mention just a couple. First, the 28-day period is not necessarily triggered by the grant of status; it is started only when the biometric residence permit is issued. That is the document needed to establish the status and enable people to apply for benefits and so on without getting unduly delayed by bureaucratic error. I am told that if administrative errors occur, that resets the 28-day period. If hon. Members have encountered any individual cases in which administrative errors that are not the fault of the refugee have occurred and a reset has not happened, I encourage them to write to me with the particulars so that I can look into them. I would be very happy indeed to do that.
We also ensure that the individual’s national insurance number is on the permit, because experience suggests that one of the things that just generally speeds things up is the NI number being clearly displayed in a place where it is easy for people to see.
The question of access to bank accounts was raised by the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and others, and it is clearly essential that refugees have bank accounts, because pretty much everything these days—getting work and everything else—requires a bank account. A lot of work has been done, and is under way as we speak, with banks to speed that up, make things easier and remove some of the barriers that exist, but I undertake to write to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is the City Minister and responsible for financial service regulation, to get an update on where we are with ensuring that bank accounts are available to refugees, who are obviously completely entitled to live here and to work, as we all do, and make sure that that is functioning as it should. I will follow up that specific point.
Jim Shannon
I was also one of those who mentioned bank accounts. I am very keen to know that what the Minister is asking for means that there will be feedback for all of us who are here and all the regions of the United Kingdom, because we need to have that provision in Northern Ireland as well.
Chris Philp
I will write to the hon. Member for Bristol West about that point on bank accounts. She can disseminate that as she sees fit to other hon. Members who take an interest and I will copy it to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), since he specifically raised that point.
The hon. Member for Strangford and others raised the important issue of English language lessons. As the Scottish National party spokesman said, properly integrating people, particularly into the workforce, is critical. We spoke about universal credit, which I will come on to address. That is clearly an important way of supporting people. Ultimately, for those granted refugee status, as for anyone else, the way out of poverty is through work rather than benefits. Being unable to speak English makes it very difficult to get into the workforce.
English language support is important. Investment in it is about £100 million per year through the adult education budget, which gives the money to various colleges and learning providers. They then decide how to meet the specific needs of their local communities. We have augmented that with an extra £10 million to support refugees who have come through the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, to ensure that they can access additional language training. On top of that, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is investing a further £4.5 million per year to support community-based language provision.
I completely accept the need for English language training. I would rather that we taught people to speak English than endlessly have to translate. Helping people to speak English is the best solution. I will keep that under review. If there is evidence that the level of provision is not adequate, I will happily follow up further.
Kate Green
I understand that the MHCLG funding for community-based language provision is due to come to an end and there is currently no news on that funding being renewed, despite our understanding a couple of years ago that the Government intended to renew it. If the Minister can do anything about that with his colleagues in that Department to raise the issue, we would all appreciate it.
Chris Philp
I will raise the issue with MHCLG colleagues and seek assurances that this funding line, which has happened in the past, will continue.
Fleur Anderson
I want to mention courses in English for speakers of other languages coming with a crèche. That is increasingly crucial the more those courses are provided by colleges and similar providers, instead of community-based providers. We are seeing that provision being cut across the country. Women with children are specifically disadvantaged by the cuts and they are not fair for all.
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady makes a good point. As a father of young children, I understand that childcare is important, whether for parents in work or further education, so her point is well made.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) made a related point about language. Notwithstanding my remarks a moment ago that teaching people to speak English is preferable to perpetually translating—for society and the individual concerned—I would like to make it clear that the welcome guide for refugees to England is available in multiple languages: Albanian, Arabic, Chinese, Vietnamese, Kurdish, Farsi, Pashtu, Punjabi, Tigrinya and Urdu. Hopefully, that will be of use to speakers of those languages.
Regarding the 28-day period, we are working with the voluntary sector. Several hon. Members have referred to its excellent work. We are also working with other Departments, as was raised by several hon. Members. We are working with local authority asylum liaison officers in some of the main areas where asylum seekers are being accommodated. That is funded by MHCLG. The role of these liaison officers is to assist newly recognised refugees with move-on arrangements, particularly housing, to ensure that the transition from supported accommodation to wider society happens as smoothly as it can.
Our asylum accommodation providers, the people who provide the supported housing while the claim is being processed, are under a contractual duty, under their contracts with the Home Office, to notify the local authority and their liaison officers of the potential need to provide housing where a person in their accommodation is granted status. We are doing everything we can to try to make that work, between the Home Office-supported accommodation and the local authority’s housing services, supported by the liaison officer, as joined up as possible.
The central question is 28 days versus 56 days. I have read the Red Cross report, to which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) referred. I have it here. There is clearly a financial cost to keeping people in supported accommodation for longer than they are currently kept there. The Red Cross report makes the case that the extra cost in the Home Office estate would be outweighed by savings in local authorities, due to less homelessness support. I will study the report. It has some costings of that equation. I will look at the numbers carefully and make my own assessment as to where that balance lies.
In addition to the purely financial consideration, there are practical capacity considerations. As we know, housing is quite difficult to come by. If we extended from 28 days to 56 days, we would increase the number of people in supported housing by a few thousand. We would then have to find those extra spaces. Even if one could make a compelling financial case—the Red Cross says that case can be made—one must think practically about where those places would come from. That must be borne in mind.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Will the Minister commit to looking at how much would be contributed financially by tax payments, if asylum seekers were allowed to work after six months, as well as how much the Home Office would save, if it made fewer mistakes and had to pay claims as requested?
Chris Philp
Work is not the topic of this debate, and it is more than a financial consideration. We can all agree that we must be quicker at handling asylum claims. Whether they are successful, and we must integrate people into the community, or whether they are unsuccessful, and the person must be removed, doing it quicker is in everybody’s interest. As a matter of priority, as the new Minister, I will find ways of making this process quicker, which would mitigate a lot of the problems we have been discussing.
I have listened carefully to everything that has been said. The points have been made with sincerity and compassion. I will reflect carefully on what I have heard this afternoon. I will look at the case made in the Red Cross report and study those numbers. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol West for securing the debate and for making her case in such a balanced and considered way.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Minister for his comments. I am aware that we are going to vote any minute now, so I will confine my closing remarks to expressing my thanks to all hon. Members for an extremely thoughtful and constructive debate. Sometimes it feels like groundhog day, because we have done this before, but I am heartened by the Minister’s response. His commitment to read the Red Cross report is welcome. I was glad to see nods from his officials at certain points made by hon. Members.
I want to be hopeful. I hope that the Minister will engage constructively with me and other hon. Members here, and I would be grateful if he agreed to meet me to discuss some of the detail. I thank him for doing that. I want to put on record the fact that I was referring earlier to David Burrowes—a good man, who set a good template. All hon. Members made constructive and thoughtful contributions and I welcome the Minister’s constructive approach to this. I hope we can take a different approach, so that we do not have to do this debate next year—that would be fantastic. We will come back to discuss the right to work—it is related—but I am happy to take the Minister’s commitment that he will focus on the issue of 28 days versus 56 days at this point.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for refugees after receiving an asylum decision.
Mount Vernon Cancer Centre
(4 years, 8 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
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of Mount Vernon Cancer Centre.
A devastating report last summer into the future of Mount Vernon Cancer Centre by a clinical advisory panel led by Professor Nick Slevin at the instigation of NHS England stated that there was
“increasing concern as to whether high quality, safe and sustainable oncology services can continue to be delivered…and there is an urgent need to address this concern.”
If media reports are to be believed, that was the first time in the NHS’s 71-year history that a major hospital specialising in such an important disease had been deemed to pose a risk to patients and declared unfit for purpose. The panel went on to note that many of the existing buildings and much of the estate used by the cancer centre was
“dilapidated and not fit for purpose. There is a need for considerable investment in buildings, equipment replacement and IT connectivity”,
as well as staff.
Mount Vernon is a nationally recognised specialist cancer service, up there alongside the likes of the Royal Marsden or the Christie in Manchester, so for it to be so dilapidated and so short-staffed when cancer diagnoses are rising is deeply worrying. The panel recommended a change in the trust managing the service and, crucially, that some parts of the service—it would appear in practice to be most—be relocated to a hospital with comprehensive acute services. The report insisted that significant capital investment should be made available to address the need for a full or even partial move of the service. It argued that the buildings and wider estate used for cancer services should then be managed by the NHS trust actually providing the services to strengthen operational control.
Professor Slevin made it clear that he and his colleagues were greatly impressed by the determination of staff to continue to provide the best quality care that they could in the difficult circumstances they were working under. He also noted the consistently positive feedback from patients about the care they receive at Mount Vernon—a point that many of my constituents who have used the service have underlined to me.
Mount Vernon is a part of the NHS that I have known for a long time, having used the minor injuries centre a number of times and having campaigned to save its then accident and emergency department in the mid-1990s. More than 1,000 residents in Harrow use the service each year, and I have yet to hear a negative view of the professionals there. My constituents and I are keen to ensure that the service is maintained to a high standard and that it stays on the Mount Vernon site, or in the next best scenario, in an area local to Mount Vernon. Critically, we need a sustained period of investment in staff, buildings and equipment. I now believe that despite University College London Hospitals coming on board, there is no plan to shift Mount Vernon’s cancer service to central London, but it would be good to hear that confirmed by the Minister.
Professor Slevin’s report set out a short-term action plan involving the transfer of the leadership, governance and management of Mount Vernon’s cancer services to an experienced tertiary or leading cancer service provider from London—that apparently is now sorted—as well as the appointment of additional staff and urgent backlog maintenance work to existing clinical facilities. I would welcome clarity from the Minister on the progress made in implementing that short-term action plan. In particular, will he publish the list of urgent backlog maintenance work that Professor Slevin and the rest of the clinical advisory panel noted was essential? Crucially, what progress has been made in tackling that work?
I tabled a written parliamentary question that the Minister answered on 11 February, suggesting that removing asbestos from Mount Vernon would alone cost £12 million, while the answer to another written parliamentary question that I tabled, published on 21 October last year, stated:
“Challenges remain around sourcing capital funding for backlog maintenance and long-term solutions for the service.”
On staffing, will the Minister set out how many additional staff needed to be appointed to the acute oncology service in July last year, when the report was published, and the progress that has been made in tackling those staffing shortages? I understand from the answer that I received on 21 October in response to another written parliamentary question that I tabled that a business case for additional staff in that area was developed and approved. Will the Minister release the business case and confirm how many of the staff positions approved for recruitment have been filled?
The short-term action plan noted that robust implementation of policies concerning admission criteria, daily consultant rounds and patient reviews was necessary, which would require additional medical staffing. Again, it would be good for the number of extra clinicians needed from July last year to be published, and to know what progress has been made in tackling those staffing shortages. The answer to my written parliamentary question suggested that a proposal for an enhanced seven-days-a-week consultant model and robust outreach medical acute oncology service provision had been developed. Was it approved? Can the business case be released, and the House informed of progress on its implementation?
I tabled a further written parliamentary question, which was answered on 10 February. That answer did not give me confidence that enough action was being taken to tackle the immediate critical vacancies. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), said in her answer that there was a 25% vacancy rate for nurses at Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, an almost 10% vacancy rate for medical staff, an almost 30% vacancy rate for clinical support staff, and an 8% vacancy gap for scientific, therapeutic and technical staff. Given the seriousness of the findings in Professor Slevin’s report, I am surprised that more progress has not been made in reducing those vacancy rates.
It is the long-term future of Mount Vernon Cancer Centre that most exercises my constituents, and no doubt many others in surrounding areas who depend on its service. The impact of the lack of capital investment is obvious to any visitor or patient. The acid test of the commitment of Ministers to the future of Mount Vernon Cancer Centre is whether they will invest in the new linear accelerators that the service needs. Linear accelerators are fundamental to the delivery of radiotherapy services, but are costly to put in place. Mount Vernon has seven, six of which are due to reach the end of their normal operational lives over the next three years.
Professor Slevin’s report last summer noted the age of the linear accelerators, or LINACs, and an answer to another written parliamentary question on 11 February noted some of the costs of replacing LINACs, particularly if they were being moved to a new site. A day earlier, an answer to another written parliamentary question noted that three of the seven linear accelerators were due to be replaced this year, with three more due in 2022. Will the three linear accelerators due for replacement this year be replaced and, if not, why not?
Professor Slevin’s report noted that the brachytherapy service at Mount Vernon Cancer Centre is nationally recognised, but access to theatres for treatment is “constrained”. What is the long-term plan to sort that issue? The report also noted the desire of East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust and the Hertfordshire sustainability and transformation partnership to see Mount Vernon Cancer Centre’s services re-provided in fit-for-purpose buildings, replacing the oldest facilities.
Indeed, so old and decrepit are the buildings that leaking roofs have forced “adjustments in service provision”. Nine months on, I ask the Minister whether there are still leaking roofs at Mount Vernon, forcing more of the cancer centre’s services to be moved. There are insufficient rooms for medical staff, specialist nurses, dieticians and speech and language therapists, inadequate electronic systems and poor IT connectivity, slowing the clinical process. There is no direct real-time connection of the X-ray systems between Mount Vernon Cancer Centre and hospitals in its catchment area, undermining the effectiveness of clinical management.
The report stresses that the impact of poor IT infrastructure should not be underestimated. Duplicate paper records, a lack of access to complete scanning images out of hours, and an inability to view a comprehensive patient record lead to clinical risk. In short, doctors cannot access the results of critical CT and MRI scans out of hours. In the short term, according to the answer to a written parliamentary question that I received on 11 February, a plan to digitise patient care records at Mount Vernon is expected to be ready for implementation in May this year. Has the funding been identified to allow that to happen or will it have to wait for a full review of the future of Mount Vernon Cancer Centre to be completed? I hope that it is the former.
Professor Slevin’s report left the exact long-term future for Mount Vernon unresolved. A strategic review of Mount Vernon Cancer Centre to resolve that question is expected to be completed sometime this year, according to the answer given on 11 February to my written parliamentary question. Who will lead that review, what clinical expertise will they have, and how can we be sure that they will see it through to completion? What is the timeline for that review?
Part of the problem for Mount Vernon Cancer Centre is that the Mount Vernon site is owned by Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, while East Herts NHS Trust runs the cancer service. Add in the confusion regarding which part of NHS England is responsible for owning the future of Mount Vernon, and it is not hard to understand why, despite two concerning Care Quality Commission reports in the past five years, there might have been a lack of NHS focus until now on Mount Vernon’s future.
I understand too that a further transfer of responsibility for Mount Vernon’s future from NHS East of England to NHS London is inevitable when University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust takes over direct responsibility for the cancer centre. Given that, and given the number of Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care who have answered my questions about Mount Vernon so far—answers for which I am very grateful—it would be good to know who among the Secretary of State’s ministerial team will continue to have immediate and ongoing responsibility for the project. If it is the Minister present today, given his seniority within the Department, I am sure that my constituents and I would welcome that news.
This 117-year-old hospital is not one of the six named for rebuilding or one of the 40 for which a rebuild or upgrade appears to be on the cards over the next five years. Unsurprisingly, I have been asked whether Mount Vernon Cancer Centre is set to close. The omens certainly do not look good, but assuming that that is not Ministers’ intentions, and that central London is not their intention for a move either, that would suggest a local move—to Hillingdon Hospital or Watford General Hospital, where I understand that upgrades have been announced or are planned. Failing those two options, either Northwick Park Hospital or Stevenage, Cambridge or Luton is likely.
My constituents and others deserve to know that the problems of Mount Vernon Cancer Centre are being sorted out. To give confidence to that end, transparency for the local community is essential. Given the seriousness of Mount Vernon’s situation, regular quarterly updates that are easy to understand and that offer a route to track progress are surely not much to ask for all those who use the cancer centre. To make such updates helpful, they should include consistent answers to three fundamental continuing questions. First, what extra staff does Mount Vernon need and what is being done to fill the vacancies? Secondly, will the three linear accelerators due to be replaced this year be replaced? Thirdly, when will a decision be made on Mount Vernon’s future, who will have a say in it, and how can they be influenced? I hope that the Minister will agree to give those updates.
Lastly, it would be remiss of me not to mention the fact that, earlier this week, a clinician at Mount Vernon Cancer Centre was suspected of having coronavirus. I understand that, after testing by Public Health England, the member of staff has fortunately proven to be negative for the virus. Inevitably, that initial concern will have been profoundly worrying for staff and patients. It is a further tribute to the professionalism of the staff at Mount Vernon Cancer Centre that they have maintained care and the high standards for which they have a deserved reputation. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I thank the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) for securing this debate on the future of Mount Vernon cancer centre. I know that the provision and location of radiotherapy services is of great interest to many hon. Members, and I was delighted to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) earlier this month to discuss aspects of this matter as it relates to their constituencies and their campaigns for a satellite radiotherapy centre, working with Mount Vernon to help serve their constituents.
The hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute to the work of the staff at Mount Vernon—not just the work that they are and will be doing to help deal with coronavirus, but the work that they do day in, day out, for his constituents and many others. I join him in paying tribute to their work and dedication. He has made a typically courteous but powerful case for investment in that hospital and in the services that serve his constituents. If I may, I will say a little bit about cancer care more broadly before I turn to the specifics of what he has said regarding Mount Vernon.
Improving cancer treatment remains a priority for this Government, and survival rates are at a high. Since 2010, rates of survival from cancer have increased year on year, but we know there is more to do nationally. That is why the NHS long-term plan states how the Government will achieve their ambition of seeing three quarters of all cancers—
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Sir Oliver Heald
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and apologise to the sponsor of the debate, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas). Does the Minister agree that both of the preferred options put forward for Mount Vernon include a satellite radiotherapy centre in our area of Hertfordshire? I hope that will form part of the Minister’s thinking, as it seemed to during our recent discussion.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. He is right about the importance of satellite radiotherapy centres for his constituents and for large parts of Hertfordshire. He and others have made a powerful case and I have considerable sympathy for it. I find it compelling and I am looking at ways in which we might be able to deliver on that for his constituents and those of other colleagues in the area.
As I was saying, the long-term plan sets out how the Government will achieve their ambition for three quarters of all cancers to be detected at an early stage, and for 55,000 more people to survive cancer for five years in England each year from 2028. That plan includes providing new investment in state-of-the-art technology to transform the process of diagnosis and boost research and innovation. NHS England has committed more than £1.3 billion in funding over the next five years to deliver the long-term plan’s commitments on cancer.
I suspect that the hon. Member for Harrow West will say, “That is great, but what does it mean for Mount Vernon, my constituents and my constituency?” He has set out the background of what has gone on at Mount Vernon cancer centre, and of the review. He will know that the strategic review of that centre’s long-term future was launched by NHS England and NHS Improvement in May 2019. The review began with an independent clinical advisory group visiting the site and speaking with staff and patients. Its report advised that the current service model was not clinically sustainable, as the hon. Gentleman has said, and recommended that leadership of services from a specialist tertiary cancer provider would be key to future service development and sustainability, staff recruitment and retention, and enabling patient access to clinical trials. I am happy to provide him with more details in writing, if that is helpful. Indeed, if I am unable to answer all of his detailed questions in the course of today’s debate, I will write to him with detailed answers as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically how the review would work, who was leading it, and who would be involved in it. It is being led by a programme board chaired by the NHS regional director of specialised commissioning and health and justice for the east of England. That board includes representatives from Healthwatch Hillingdon, Healthwatch Hertfordshire, London and the East of England Cancer Alliance, as well as local sustainability and transformation partnerships, clinical commissioning groups and a number of acute hospitals. They all sit on that board and are active participants. If it is helpful to the hon. Gentleman, rather than simply giving him the job titles, I can seek to furnish him with some names—those of the senior leadership, at least.
The hon. Gentleman said that the independent clinical advisory group made recommendations for short-term actions, including addressing urgent backlog maintenance of existing clinical facilities and the strengthening of acute oncology services. The current provider, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, supported those recommendations. In January of this year, following evaluation of proposals from interested trusts, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was selected as the preferred provider, subject to a period of due diligence. Depending on the outcome of that due diligence, the contract for running the site should transfer in April next year, with UCLH providing additional leadership support for that site over the next 14 months.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned backlog maintenance, which I have touched on. He is right to have done so, because, as he knows, backlog maintenance has increased in recent years. Although the trust received £33 million of central capital in 2019 to tackle critical infrastructure issues across the estate, monitored by NHSE&I, I know that it continues to be of concern. Although I do not wish to prejudge the future capital settlement and the capital spending review, the hon. Gentleman has powerfully made the point that the capital needs of his hospital and his trust should be considered in any future allocations of capital funding.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of access to brachytherapy services, which will be wrapped up in the review that is currently under way. Regarding the future location of services, I can assure him and hon. Members that options for the short-term and long-term future of the centre are being actively considered by the clinical advisory group and NHSE&I, with the local area and the hon. Gentleman’s hospital at the forefront of their thinking. When I write to him, I suspect he might wish me to be a little firmer in my reassurances. As far as I am able, subject to that review, I will endeavour to do so.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about staffing issues at the hospital. Existing clinical leads at Mount Vernon have increased their leadership duties at the hospital alongside their clinical responsibilities. Recruitment of a full-time clinical director will take place in conjunction with the new provider, once it is appointed. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the business case for appointing additional staff to the acute oncology service that has been developed and submitted to NHS England. My understanding is that the business case has been approved and recruitment has begun. I will take up with NHS England his request that he have sight of it and—ideally from his perspective, I think—that it be made publicly available. I do not know what the answer will be, but I will certainly ask that question, because it does not seem an unreasonable request.
Regarding whether the three linear accelerators due for replacement this year are going to be replaced, my latest understanding is that although East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust has not yet agreed its full capital programme for the 2020-21 financial year, it has identified a requirement for capital funding, which the board will consider in that context. As soon as I hear the outcome of those decisions, I will write to the hon. Gentleman, who, as ever, makes his case politely but forcefully. More broadly, as he will be aware, NHS England has invested £130 million in the modernisation of radiotherapy across England, ensuring that older linear accelerators—that is, radiotherapy machines—used by hospitals are upgraded. We have made significant progress. I think the hon. Gentleman’s request acknowledges that, but he is essentially saying, “Yes, I have been given a promise, but please make sure that the delivery follows.” The decision on the trust’s investment priorities rightly sits with the board, and we will wait for that decision, but I will make sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said is communicated to the board. I suspect he will make sure of that as well, but I will ensure that the board is aware of his views.
The hon. Gentleman suggested quarterly updates to track progress against a basket of key indicators or asks in the context of the action plan. I hesitate to give a clear commitment until I have had the opportunity to talk to the trust and NHS England, but what I will say—I hope gives him an indication of my thinking—is that it sounds like an eminently practical and reasonable request to ensure that he, other interested parties and his constituents are kept informed about and engaged with a process that will, of course, be of concern to them but also of interest as well. It sounds reasonable—I am not aware of a factor that makes it unreasonable—and I will certainly press that point, because I think it is a sensible way forward.
In response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire, I have touched on satellite radiotherapy centres. Alongside working with the Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, we are proactively looking at providing satellite radiotherapy centres for his constituents in the northern part of Hertfordshire and around Stevenage. It is too early to say exactly how we might do that, but I am determined to work proactively with colleagues to see if we can achieve it.
We are committed to the digitisation of paper records, which the hon. Member for Harrow West mentioned, to enable effective patient care and enhanced patient safety. The digital transformation plan, which will include the digitisation of patient care records, is under way for Mount Vernon’s main acute services and is expected to conclude in May 2020. I understand that the commitment to do that—to support and fund it—remains unchanged. If anything has changed, I will make sure that he is updated as appropriate.
There are a number of hon. Members present. I suspect they are not here to hear my or the hon. Gentleman’s eloquence, but possibly that of other hon. Members and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who will take part in the debate that will start in a few minutes. Given the interest, however, I will see if it is appropriate to put in the Library a copy of my letter to the hon. Gentleman so that it is on the record.
If the hon. Gentleman thinks it would be useful, I am happy to meet him and to visit Mount Vernon with him to meet the staff, to hear the executive team’s thinking on what is going on, and to see it for myself. He raised a number of detailed and precise questions and important points. In the short time I have had, I have sought to reassure him and address a number of them, but I look forward to the opportunity to give him a more detailed answer in writing following the debate, and to visit him.
I reassure hon. Members that cancer, and improving cancer treatment and care, remains a key priority for the Government and the Department. We, along with NHSE&I and other arm’s length bodies, are working hard to ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and those of all hon. Members are provided with the best care.
Although cancer care and cancer services are the responsibility of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), given that a large amount of what the hon. Gentleman has talked about relates to performance and to capital and funding, which are in my portfolio, I will endeavour to maintain a personal direct interest in the issue, in partnership with my hon. Friend, to make sure that we both give it the attention it deserves and that he and his constituents have a right to expect.
Question put and agreed to.
VAT (Listed Properties)
(4 years, 8 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
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered VAT on listed properties.
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I apologise again to the Minister, whom I seem to drag to Westminster Hall on a fairly regular basis on tax issues. This debate is about VAT on listed properties, which come in all shapes and sizes. They can be modest country cottages, terraced houses, farmhouses and former industrial buildings being brought into some other type of use. They are spread across the entire UK.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
To that list, I add churches, which are also listed buildings. Does my hon. Friend think that the grant scheme is adequate and properly replaces VAT in the way that it is carried out?
Craig Mackinlay
The listed places of worship grant scheme has been in place since 2001. It has been taken up by 89% of churches; one third take up the scheme every year; and most churches, over the cycle, have used it six times. It is working quite well, but obviously it is not as clean as a pure exemption. I will come on to analyse that further.
Listed properties are owned by the normal cross-section of the population. The beautiful town of Sandwich in my constituency is home to more listed properties than any other town in the country. It is one of the best-preserved medieval towns in England. I want to do everything I can to help to preserve it and the other great medieval towns across our country.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate for those of us who represent areas like Sandwich that have a high preponderance of listed buildings. There are more than 3,000 in my constituency. They are often in rural areas where properties are remote, isolated and, in many cases, hard to heat. I hope that he will talk about the opportunity to reduce VAT to, say, 5% on renewable energy initiatives in listed properties, which the Minister might want to take into account in the forthcoming Budget or the comprehensive spending review later this year.
Craig Mackinlay
My right hon. Friend makes an important point for people who have older properties, which are expensive to heat. We have ambitions to be carbon neutral by 2050, so the current regime of charging full VAT on trying to do the right thing for the Government’s other ambitions seems somewhat perverse.
Philip Dunne
My hon. Friend will remember that it was introduced by the EU. We had to reduce the previous concession as a result of an EU directive. Now we are free from EU directives, we may be able to be more liberal in our interpretation of VAT laws.
Craig Mackinlay
We are branching into another area, but my right hon. Friend is correct. Just a few months ago, we were forced to raise the rating on small renewable units from 5% to 20% because we lost a European Court of Justice judgment. That is quite perverse in the current environment.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there was a missed opportunity in 2008, when the ECOFIN conference in Helsinki agreed that VAT could be reduced to 5% on labour-intensive industries, which include building repair and renovation? Despite the best efforts of hon. Members, successive Governments have refused to take advantage of that opportunity, which would have been of great benefit to areas such as his constituency and mine, where there is a high concentration of listed buildings, very low incomes and a reduced ability for people to renovate their houses.
Craig Mackinlay
I was not aware of that ECOFIN conference. Any country under the EU VAT regime has always had the ability to reduce VAT to 5% on items, but the problem is that it is a ratchet, so once VAT has been implemented on something, it can never return to zero. That has been a feature and problem of our VAT membership. We have had various discussions about that in the main Chamber on the so-called tampon tax.
Hywel Williams
That particular dispensation was for labour-intensive industries and, at that time, certain countries reduced their VAT. For example, France reduced VAT on restaurant meals; Italy reduced VAT on building renovation and repair; and Belgium reduced VAT on bicycle maintenance and repair. The reduction in Italy was an alleged example—a rare or perhaps unique example—of the Laffer curve in operation in that, when VAT was reduced, receipts to the state increased massively as people moved out of the dark economy.
Craig Mackinlay
The hon. Member shows his great wealth and breadth of experience of international VAT matters, and I stand educated.
I want to do everything that I can to help preserve our great medieval towns. Listed properties are not grand ancestral piles; a huge majority are very modest properties that are owned and loved by normal people. Private listed property owners are protecting the vast majority of Britain’s built heritage out of their own pocket, but the costs for doing repairs and renovations have risen sharply in recent years.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great challenges with climate change and pollution is tackling some of the problems with the heating and insulation of such properties? If they are listed, there are features that have to be protected in the process, so it is an expensive business. It is very much in the national interest that these changes should be made, and it is only right that the Treasury should consider whether previous concessions could be reintroduced.
Craig Mackinlay
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. There have been certain schemes over the years for wood pellet-type boilers, and grants have been available, but he highlights the unique features of older properties. It is often not feasible or possible to put in a cheap, efficient gas boiler, which other property owners might be able to do.
I turn to the obvious desire to insulate homes and make them more energy efficient. It is a very reasonable desire, because a lot of listed properties are draughty and old and do not have modern insulation. They are expensive to heat, which adds to the costs of being a listed property owner.
Sir Oliver Heald
My hon. Friend will be aware that North East Hertfordshire is one of the constituencies that has a high number of listed properties, many of them modest. Does he agree that the situation in urban areas is different from that in rural areas? If someone lives in a rural area with a significant number of listed buildings, there has to be some sort of level playing field to try to help them make the relevant changes.
Craig Mackinlay
My right hon. Friend makes a perfect point about country living, as opposed to living in towns, because cheaper piped gas is often not available. People might have Calor-style units in their garden, or they might rely on solid fuels such as coal. We had discussions, dare I say, with the Government last week and advanced various measures that I cannot say I fully agree with at this time.
In 2012, we got to the point where the zero VAT rating for authorised alterations to listed properties was removed. The owners of 500,000 listed buildings across the country, 98% of which are privately owned, then suffered a potential increase of 20% in anything that they do to keep their properties in a good state of repair. As listed property owners often say, an individual never really owns a listed property, but is merely borrowing it.
Before the 2012 Budget, the zero VAT rating was available as long as people had applied for the proper listed property consent with the local authority. As hon. Members know, such consent is often costly to obtain and requires input from specialists, including architects and building control, the navigation of the local planning system and a variety of interpretations by conservation officers. All of that is on a scale that is wholly different from that of people who do not live in listed properties, and such requirements all add costs—even before having the bespoke works required.
The all-party parliamentary group on listed properties, of which I have been the chairman, is currently being re-established. It has evidence that the addition of VAT reduced the number of recorded works being carried out to protect and maintain listed properties by some 30% in the first four years, between 2012 and 2016. There was a notable and recorded drop in applications for proper conservation works. One can only guess what was happening. Were people simply not bothering to go through the process? Owing to the extra cost, were they simply deciding to make do with where they were? There was a full 75% drop in applications over just three years, subsequent to the change in the VAT rules.
These works will be of ongoing economic benefit, often creating a new home where one did not exist before or converting an older property into a business premises. They are positive goods that would perhaps take pressure away from new builds on green spaces. I have spoken to many listed property owners who face financial hardship. Many have been forced to sell their home as a result of costs increasing by 20%. It has to be said that a tax on listed buildings is not a tax on the wealthy, but a tax on attempts to protect our cultural heritage.
I secured the debate to join thousands of listed property owners in calling on the Government to introduce a form of VAT relief. Preferably, let us go back to where we were: a reduction from the 20% rate back to zero, which would be a great place to be. That will be possible in the post-Brexit world, but we are currently in our implementation period, so 5% could be achieved at the Budget next week.
Maintaining listed buildings has a lot more in common with other kinds of building work that has a lower rate of VAT. Some energy-efficient measures qualify for the 5% rate—obviously a restriction was introduced recently, which seemed rather perverse. Converting houses into flats, and renovating empty properties that have lain empty for two years qualify for a lower VAT rate of 5%. The Government and Treasury quite rightly want to encourage bringing such properties into use, and that nudge effect is advanced through the lower VAT rate.
Of course, the biggest anomaly of all—a correct anomaly, in my view—is that we have had a zero VAT rating on new builds since we became a member of the EU. There is a long history to this type of debate, going back to the 1940s. We had the Town and Country Planning Acts 1944 and 1947, which implemented the listing system that we know today. Even back then, the Government knew that they were imposing upon listed property owners a new range of probably unwelcome regulations, and that they had to give something in return. The something in return was a zero VAT rating or, before 1972, sales tax exemptions for this type of work. It is essential that we have a lower rate of VAT on listed properties, because we want to give people the opportunity to make the necessary improvements to this country’s built heritage.
In the 2012 debate—that year’s Budget did not go down too well, because there were quite a few VAT measures in it—the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that the reason for the change was to prevent an exemption for a
“big swimming pool in a listed Tudor house”.—[Official Report, 18 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 319.]
That was a fairly thin argument, because I do not think it was taken up by too many of the 500,000 listed property owners. If such behaviour was going on, we could have exempted that from the zero VAT rating in isolation.
Hywel Williams
Perhaps I can reinforce the hon. Member’s point by declaring an interest. When I bought my listed house some 20 years ago—very cheaply, I should say—it came with a name from my children. They called it the pizza house, because it came with added mushrooms growing out of the walls. It certainly did not have a swimming pool, but I, like everyone else, had to pay 20% VAT on the renovation. I think that strengthens the point that he is making.
Craig Mackinlay
The hon. Member makes that point well. Such properties need significant renovations that are not the norm when buying newer-type properties. We need to make listed buildings properties that people want to own, to spend money on, and to do the right thing by maintaining them. Maintenance costs for those properties can simply huge, so offsetting some of that cost would make a meaningful impact.
What is VAT there for? It was always designed to be a tax on consumption. Painstakingly maintaining a national heritage asset should not be considered consumption, but action in the national interest. Not only is the economic cost of the work often more expensive than other work, the VAT is an additional tax for doing the right thing. Removing the VAT does not give money back to the owners; it simply means that the Exchequer does not gain a little bit from the maintenance of the fabric of the nation.
Across the country, the built environment of our great towns and cities drives tourism and the continuation of many historic building skills. Government policy in the national policy planning framework, as well as guidance from Historic England, state that heritage protection must enable buildings to stay in active use and alterations can support that. If owners make changes to their properties without any impact on historic features that is considered a positive outcome, as it enables the continued use of such properties. The old way of removing VAT by zero-rating the renovation was simple, easy and reasonable. There is no reason not to return to that pretty simple scheme.
Hon. Members have mentioned energy efficiency. The type of energy efficiency required of older buildings is vastly different from more modern buildings. Materials are likely to be different, and the skills required to make such properties more energy efficient are different. We do not want those listed properties to fall out of use, and support would help to keep them in use. As has been accepted within other parts of the VAT code, renovations can be at a lower rate of VAT if properties have been out of use for two years, so reductions are not unusual.
Works on listed buildings are often carried out by tradesmen who specialise in conservation work. They are often small local businesses, rather than big corporates, so a reduction in VAT would increase correspondingly the amount of activity and would be a boost to a small and declining sector. Cutting VAT would encourage investment in skills in those types of artisanal works, and could encourage more young people into a sector that struggles to recruit. The increased taxable profits in those businesses would benefit the Treasury in corporation tax and income tax receipts. Cutting VAT would prime the pump in that whole area.
It is estimated that, through tourism, heritage across the country contributes £31 billion of value added to the economy. Those homes make our towns desirable places to visit, whether they are in Sandwich or in the constituency of Bath, which is represented in the Chamber. Who benefits from that tourism? Local businesses. There is not much in it for the public, who are busy maintaining their own properties rather than attracting tourists.
An interesting example is the Isle of Man, which has been through a similar process, following an argument similar argument to one that I am advancing. The Isle of Man has reduced VAT on such repair work to 5%, but only for the labour element. Some 96% of the Isle’s construction firms have reported increased workloads; 43% have reported taking on more staff; and 40% reported that their clients were having work done that they would otherwise have put off or not had done at all. There was a significant move away both from the owners having a go and carrying out work with which they are not fully conversant, and from rogue traders and cash-in-hand deals, which are not too far away from most street corners. The Isle of Man scheme was meant to be an experiment but, owing to its success, it is now permanent.
The Listed Property Owners Club keeps vast records on activity in the listed property market. There has been a drop in listed property applications to local councils and in works being undertaken. Figures from Historic England show that cost was one of the biggest reasons for works not being carried out. The numbers are significant: in 2017, 30% of people said it was just too costly and that they were not going to do the work at all. Another reason is that specialist local skills are dying out. In 2017, 17% of people could not get works done because they simply could not find a qualified trader. Historic Houses suggests that £1.3 billion of outstanding work to listed properties is being put off or not carried out at all. That is money that people would want to spend if they could afford it and if VAT were reduced.
I have not been quiet on this topic. I corresponded with the Minister just a few weeks ago, and I can anticipate some of the arguments that he may make in response. He might say that the rationale for the removal of the zero rating was to restore or to address a VAT anomaly, but we already have anomalies, with zero-rated new builds and the two-year lower VAT rate for bringing a property back into use. He might say that it was unfair that some people got a relief, while others did not. We are not talking about normal properties, however. We are talking about unique skills, because very expensive bespoke repairs are often required.
Getting new PVC windows done is VAT-able, but there are a vast number of companies that can do that and it is a cut-throat industry. The approach to a listed building is different, because it will often need bespoke wooden frames made at three or four times the price. That is an anomaly, and I am asking for an exemption from VAT on those bespoke works. Even without the VAT, those bespoke works would still be far more expensive than most standard products that are taxed at the 20% rate.
The old VAT relief used to nudge people towards the painful experience of applying for listed property consent, because saving 20% on a repair bill was seen as a good thing. That made sure that conservation works were up to the proper local standard, because there was an incentive. A worry is that people are undertaking inappropriate repairs to their properties to save money and, because enforcement by the local authority is highly unlikely, they are willing to take that risk. That is not a good place to be; I want to encourage people to do the right thing with their properties.
Another scheme that has been running for a very long time is the listed places of worship scheme, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). Through Government grants, the scheme pays for the VAT that listed places of worship suffer—that could be implemented in lieu of a full zero rating. The scheme seems to work, and 89% of such places have used it. Over the period, many churches have used it five or six times, and a third of all churches use it annually. The Treasury might say, “It’s complicated and cumbersome”, but 13,000 applications have been managed effectively. It seems to work—if that is a method HMRC will consider—but the simpler method would be to go back to what we had before, which was zero rating if the proper listed property consent had been granted by the local authority.
To summarise, we can achieve what I would like to achieve by two means: either we go back to where we were before the 2012 Budget; or we go to a scheme akin to the listed places of worship grant scheme—so by means of a grant, which might make it targeted and would certainly prevent the swimming pool in the Tudor mansion. Now we are not so bound by rules on VAT, we have an opportunity. We can create our own framework that is right for our country, and I would like the Treasury to be part of people doing the right thing—improving, maintaining and repairing their properties. I have heard no great reason why the perceived anomaly was an anomaly at all, given that many charitable institutions receive VAT relief and other building works have a variety of VAT reliefs. We could push training, skills and profits into declining trades, and unleash a lot of pent-up expenditure into a market that is part of the good fabric of the country. Next week, I will be delighted to hear about some movement of support.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) on securing this debate, which is very relevant to my constituency. I have already had many discussions with relevant bodies, in particular the UNESCO world heritage site body, on the need to get to net zero. I am especially worried about listed buildings in the context of the climate emergency.
That is an important issue, particularly for my constituency. With about 5,000 listed buildings, Bath has the highest concentration in the UK other than here in Westminster. The Bath and North East Somerset—or BANES—Council has the highest number of listed building consent applications, at 700 last year. In Bath, the wish to continue and maintain our built heritage is very much alive, but there is a burden on those who own the buildings. I am very much aware of that.
That situation is not a coincidence. I am proud that Bath has been a pioneer in protecting buildings of interest since the 1880s. Listed buildings and how to maintain our built heritage is very much a Bath issue. As the buildings age, the challenges of preserving them have grown. In addition, we now face the challenge of the climate emergency, so the urgency of upgrading listed buildings has only grown.
The housing stock in this country is our largest producer of carbon emissions and millions of homes will need to be made much more energy-efficient over the coming decades if we are to have any chance of achieving net zero. That poses a significant enough task for most homeowners but, for those who own the 2% of total housing stock that is listed, the challenge is greater and more expensive, as we have heard. This debate has to be about not the swimming pool, which might add value to a property, but the maintenance of heritage and tackling the climate emergency.
Listed buildings are likely to be older and therefore less insulated, and to have less efficient heating systems than other properties. Coincidentally, though, older properties keep cooler, so if we look at the climate emergency and overheating, sometimes the listed building might provide an answer. Previous generations knew well how to keep cool. I have the privilege of sometimes being invited into beautiful properties in Bath, and have talked about the shutters that still exist in some of the older buildings. Previous generations knew how to use shutters effectively. It is important to work with people who own listed buildings and are interested in the history of how we used to live, and for people to put their mind to understanding the history and often the benefits of what previous generations knew about healthy living.
If the Government are to take their net zero obligations seriously, financial support and incentives are vital to reduce carbon emissions from listed buildings. The simplest way, and a necessary first step, for the Government to ease this financial burden is for VAT relief to be extended from simply covering alterations to applying to all renovations and improvements in listed properties, especially where aimed at reducing carbon emissions and getting to net zero.
Extending VAT relief would help the thousands of private owners of listed buildings in Bath and beyond to preserve important historical properties and to tackle the climate emergency. I do not want to argue with the hon. Member for South Thanet about whether it was worth leaving the European Union so that the 2%, the listed building owners, can get VAT relief, but it would be somewhat perverse—or hypocritical—of the Government not to use their freedom to look at VAT relief on listed properties in this country. Britain attracts thousands—millions—of tourists every year because of its wonderful built heritage. We need to ensure that we preserve it and, at the same time, to take our climate change and net zero obligations seriously.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher.
I thank the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) for securing this debate, which is on an issue that is overdue for some action. I certainly hope that the Government will take it on board.
The SNP has argued for a reduction in VAT for energy improvement measures in homes. We asked for reductions in VAT for more modern buildings, those affected by the cladding scandal. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a strong argument to do that for listed buildings as well. Research by the Federation of Master Builders demonstrates that cutting VAT for energy-efficiency improvements, for example, would significantly boost the UK economy and generate thousands of jobs, bring empty properties back into use, improve the energy efficiency of our housing stock, reduce the incidence of fuel poverty, and protect consumers and legitimate businesses by significantly reducing the competitive advantage of rogue traders.
The hon. Gentleman went into some of the history of the measures we are debating and how they came about. In 2012, when the then Chancellor proposed levying VAT on listed properties, the Scottish Government Culture Secretary, Fiona Hyslop—I note she is still in her post, despite the UK Government being on their fourth Chancellor since then—said in a written answer to a parliamentary question in Holyrood:
“The UK Government’s proposal is clearly a deeply regrettable step in the opposite direction from the approach that the Scottish Ministers advocate.
Maintaining the VAT relief on alterations to listed buildings, and reducing the VAT rate applicable to repairs and maintenance, would be important positive steps which would stimulate economic activity in a sector worth around £2.3 billion gross value added”—
to Scotland’s economy alone—
“a significant proportion of which is attributable to construction activity.”
At the time, she wrote to the Chancellor,
“urging him to withdraw from this policy”,
but, as we know, that is not always taken on. However, there is always an opportunity for the Government to reflect on the error of their ways—perhaps they would be wise to do so.
There are many arguments around the subject, and rationales about Tudor swimming pools and the like have been given, but this is not about people in big mansions getting their houses repaired. The reality is that half of listed properties in this country are occupied by people at the very low end of the socioeconomic distribution. This is not necessarily about attacks on the wealthy or just about protecting glorious listed buildings; this is about the homes that people live in.
There are 1,840 derelict sites and buildings in Glasgow city; 126 of those are in the listed buildings at risk register. It is no surprise that many are concentrated in areas of higher deprivation. People in those areas are three times more likely to live near vacant derelict land, but they are the same people who benefit most from having those buildings repaired and brought up to standard.
Hywel Williams
There is a particular issue where there is a high concentration of listed buildings in poor condition and low incomes. The market in general has a chilling effect on the provision of specialist labour, as the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) mentioned. There is a more general effect of the amplification of housing deprivation when one compares the many hundreds of thousands of new builds, particularly in urban and suburban areas in the south-east, which are free of VAT, with buildings such as those in my constituency, where 20% VAT is paid.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman is correct; it is a perverse incentive that a building could be perfectly fixable, but it is more cost effective to demolish it and build something new. We want to incentivise people to keep those buildings. In Glasgow, huge swathes of the city have been demolished and replaced with newer and less adequate buildings, which in turn have been demolished, rather than investing in the original buildings. In the areas where we still have a dense tenemental stock, there would be a real benefit to incentivising people to repair those buildings and keep them, because they are fundamentally good and we should have them for the future.
Within the city of Glasgow there are 25 different conservation areas. In my constituency there is Central, Park, East and West Pollokshields, Dumbreck, Strathbungo, Bridgeton, Hazelwood, Walmer Crescent and St Vincent Crescent. They all have different characters: the working-class neighbourhoods of Bridgeton have a beautiful cross, which would see the benefit of further repairs. It is very different in character from West Pollokshields, where there are bigger houses.
All those areas need repair and maintenance, because times have changed since the Victorians built them. They need continual maintenance and repair to avoid dramatic tenement collapses, which do happen on occasion in the city. That is because, despite the best efforts of organisations such as the Glasgow City Heritage Trust, which pays out building repair grants, development grants and grants that go towards those traditional skills, they are just papering over the cracks of a larger problem of the maintenance of tenement stock. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) has also made the argument in the House that we need to look at these issues and find ways of tackling the burden on cities. Reducing that 20% VAT rate as low as we can would have a huge impact on our ability to deal with that.
The social cost of derelict and damaged buildings is huge. They are deeply uninspiring for people who live next to the sites and look out on them. They are a drag on aspiration and motivation, and they often serve a visual reminder to many people of a distant, out-of-touch Government who neglected the industrialised communities over generations and left them to rot. The Scottish Government have made some progress in reversing the situation through the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, which gives community groups the option to repurpose derelict buildings for the good of the people who live in those communities. The funding to do so comes from the Scottish Land Fund. Those are community-led, focused actions, instead of the top-down approach that has often failed communities and left them behind.
From a policy perspective, investment in high-deprivation areas makes economic sense. People in those areas are much more likely to spend their money locally, and repurposing buildings to create jobs or businesses has a high multiplier effect. Will the Minister look at the issue from that point of view, as a good endeavour to incentivise people in those areas?
There are plans afoot in my constituency to refurbish the old St James Primary School in Calton, to provide a brand-new primary school—a much-needed facility that will, if it goes through, specialise in Gaelic education, to become the next Gaelic school in the city of Glasgow. The building was built in 1895 but, sadly, stood derelict for 10 years after it was closed by the Glasgow Labour administration. At the time, I was a councillor fighting to save it, because it was very much the heart of the community. Without it, the community has no hub—all people see when they walk past is a derelict building with trees growing out of its roof. The council at the time said that it was too difficult to run and too expensive to repair: too expensive to get the energy efficiency measures that were needed; too expensive to fit a boiler to replace the old coal boiler that the janny had to haul coal into. Making the VAT rate for those kind of improvements more incentivised would be a good thing to do.
In addition, there is a lot to do with identity and the importance of those buildings in communities. I urge Minister to take action. As hon. Members have said, the excuse of the EU is finished with, sadly—I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on that. As the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) said, some of this has been of our own making, but it is now up to the Government to put that right.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) for securing today’s debate, and for his work in the all-party parliamentary group on listed properties to highlight the issues faced by people who own such homes. This interesting and well-informed debate has made it clear that the treatment of construction work is one of the most complicated areas of VAT law, where there is a lot of confusion that produces, no question, a lot of transaction cost and issues for people interested in trying to repair their homes.
It has cropped up a little in the debate that there are still certain circumstances in which the 5% VAT rate applies to construction work on listed properties. VAT relief may be possible for VAT-registered contractors on a conversion of a non-residential property into a dwelling; where a domestic property has been empty for two years prior to the work; for conversions where the number of residential units changes and becomes more intensive; where there are changes to introduce mobility aids for the over-60s; and for changes linked to a social purpose, for example if social housing is put in listed properties. Zero per cent. VAT also applies to certain kinds of work for disabled people. All those reliefs are targeted; they ensure that properties do not go unused and can be properly adapted for elderly and disabled people.
The debate has been about whether we need a targeted change in relation to repairs to listed properties. On a bit of a tangent, there was a little discussion about VAT on the installation of energy-saving technologies. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) in that regard—she was spot on. The comments by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) about the listing system in Bath and what it has achieved were very interesting, but I question whether a high cost for introducing energy efficiency and renewable energy is unique to the listed sector.
Others mentioned their personal circumstances; I live in an ex-council property that cannot have cavity wall insulation because it does not have cavity walls. The only thing that could be done would be to clad it in brick, which would be pretty expensive. I will not say that that is of the same complexity as many of the changes that might be needed in listed properties, but we need to look at energy saving overall.
Anneliese Dodds
I am not implying at all that the hon. Lady would be against broader changes for other housing, if that is why she wants to intervene. I know that she is a champion of those schemes in Parliament.
When it comes to this specific relief, I share the concerns of the hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and for Glasgow Central about the impact of the changes on low-income areas—also picked up on by the hon. Member for South Thanet—and the lack of a level playing field between new build and existing listed buildings. Again, because of the existing relief system, if they have been lying unused for a couple of years, or if they are conversions from industrial use, they would already be covered by reductions.
I have a question for the Minister about another aspect of the current regime: I understand that there is a zero VAT rate for substantial reconstructions of listed properties if they proceed from a shell. I would like him to tell me whether HMRC has done any work to consider whether that might have led to the kinds of activities that, sadly, are too well known to us as MPs, whereby a listed property ends up having a strange fire at some point and its insides are gutted. It would be interesting to find out whether HMRC has done any work on that.
There have been a lot of changes to VAT over recent years. Any further changes need to be extremely well evidenced and justified. VAT is the third biggest revenue raiser of the different kinds of tax. We need to consider the dead-weight from proposals of this sort and whether they are appropriately targeted. I accept that reducing VAT probably would be an incentive for additional repair work, but we need to consider whether that is the right mechanism. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for South Thanet compare this proposal with the system for churches, which does seem to be appropriately targeted. We would need to look at that in relation to questions about, for example, repairs in low-income areas or among people who do not have the means to make such changes.
On the hon. Gentleman’s comment about the reduction in the number of firms that can carry out specialised repairs to listed properties, we have seen a reduction in the number of small building firms generally. It could be that that is correlated with what has happened more broadly in the economy. That is a worrying development whatever part of the building trade it occurs in, but we may need to parse the reasons for that reduction, which may be tied to the general state of the property market and the recovery from the financial crisis.
Finally, I am sure the Minister is sick of me saying this, but we need a better evidence base generally for whether tax reliefs perform what they were set out to do. We have figures for about only 111 of the around 326 tax expenditures that are set out by the Government; it is likely there are more that are not covered. Bodies such as the International Monetary Fund state that we should have as much scrutiny of tax reliefs as we have of spending proposals. I think that is sensible. Although I accept that applying for a grant scheme requires bureaucracy, claiming many of those tax reliefs requires an accountant, which is an additional cost for people. We must consider carefully whether the proposed relief would be appropriately targeted.
Again, I congratulate not just the hon. Member for South Thanet but all Members who participated in the debate. I found it illuminating, and I hope that the Minister provides answers to some of the questions that were posed.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I think the debate has shown that this topic is of great interest in different parts of the country and to different parts of our community. There is widespread interest in it throughout the House, but also in parts well outside it. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), who is indefatigable and is learned in matters of tax, for calling the debate, and all other hon. Members who contributed to it.
My hon. Friend is known for his expertise in tax. I had suspected he was a Burkean in matters of preservation of our assets, our national heritage and the priceless inheritance of previous generations, and it was good to hear that Burkeanism in action. I salute him for it. I also salute him for his timing; he managed to secure the debate in the lee of a fiscal event that is due at some point in the not-too-distant future. I have found the debate engrossing.
I think we all agree that listed buildings are an integral part of the shared history of our British life and culture, and that they greatly enrich that history. The Government absolutely recognise—as, I know, does every Member of the House—the importance of protecting and making the most of that UK heritage. It is important not merely socially and culturally but economically.
As my hon. Friend will know, the Government released a heritage statement in 2017 setting out many ways in which they support this sector. It is important to remind ourselves that the Government write a cheque of £80 million or more towards heritage organisations. The listed places of worship grant scheme was discussed at some length. That and the UK heritage organisations do valuable preservation work. We also have Historic England and the Heritage Lottery Fund to fund and support general advice and assistance for the conservation of heritage, including listed buildings.
The Government recognise, however, the very specific challenges faced by private owners of listed properties in planning regulations. That is why the Government introduced measures to streamline the listed buildings consent regime in 2013, including by removing the need for specific applications for minor works to listed buildings and giving local authorities the power to grant a general consent.
My hon. Friend highlighted several mechanisms by which the goal he seeks could be achieved, one of which is to extend the reduced rate—or possibly a nil rate—to more goods and services, and so to reduce the up-front costs associated with the refurbishment and renovation of listed buildings. As he pointed out, we have some experience of a comparable relief in the past. Previously, approved alterations to listed buildings were zero-rated when used for residential use or by a charity. That relief was introduced to reduce the costs associated with restoring or enhancing the unique character of a listed building or prolonging its active life.
Importantly, however, that is not actually what happened. The majority of work carried out under that relief was for extension purposes rather than for maintenance, and the relief did not deliver the original point and purpose of the legislation. I am afraid that, in so doing, it deployed large amounts of taxpayers’ money in ways that were not contemplated by Parliament when it passed the legislation. That is why that legislation was withdrawn as part of the 2012 Budget.
Wera Hobhouse
Would not it therefore make sense just to define a little more what the VAT relief is for, rather than scrapping it for everybody?
Jesse Norman
Of course those are two entirely separate things. To remove a relief is to remove a very blunt and general instrument that is, by its bluntness and generality, open to abuse. In this case, it had the contradictory effect of potentially disincentivising repairs, because people focused on extensions, which was directly contrary to the purpose of the legislation. However, as has been recognised with the listed places of worship fund, there can be scope for a more targeted intervention through funds rather than tax reliefs. That is the other option we were given by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet.
As my hon. Friend knows better than probably any other Member, VAT is a broad-based tax on consumption, and the standard rate of 20% applies to the vast majority of goods and services. There are exceptions to the standard rate, but they are strictly limited by domestic law as well as by fiscal considerations. Hon. Members will appreciate that we are not short of requests for VAT relief in the Treasury. We have VAT reliefs for repairs and improvements, but of course that includes repairs to damage caused by floods or by the desperate events that have necessitated re-cladding of buildings for health and safety reasons. In total, we are presently dealing with about £40 billion of requests for relief, many of them triggered by the recognition that we are leaving the EU and seeking to exploit that fact for other purposes. We must place this proposal in that category.
It is estimated that introducing a relief for the repair and maintenance of all buildings would cost the Exchequer something like £4 billion a year. We do not have an estimate for listed buildings, but, as was pointed out, there are more than 450,000 of them in the UK, so such a relief would undoubtedly be very substantial in quantum. Of course, that is a constraint on what we can do.
Let me address the remarks by the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who was commendably direct and straight about what exists: the 5% rate for the recovery of properties that have been empty for two years. She is absolutely right to point out the target issue versus the dead-weight cost, which I also highlighted. She is also right about our concerns, reflecting wider considerations on the state of the economy, and the need for a better understanding of the factual base for reliefs. Perhaps I can give her some comfort.
As the hon. Lady pointed out in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who is no longer in his place, there is a relief available for the installation of energy-saving materials on residential properties, whether listed or unlisted. As she mentioned, we have measures to incentivise the use of listed buildings for residential purposes, as well as to increase the overall number of dwellings. Those measures cover listed buildings, so there is scope to support them in some circumstances.
I turn to some of the specific points made. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet pointed out that the relief is not directly comparable to its predecessor. The question of targeting is therefore central to what we have discussed. There is fairness, because listed and unlisted buildings are treated in the same way. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said that the task for us all is to protect the homes that people live in, and of course an enormously larger number of people live in unlisted homes than in listed homes. The tax system tries to respect and acknowledge that intuition. It would be difficult to narrow the scope of a relief. Therefore, if one was to go down the path of a fund—my hon. Friend could raise that for a future fiscal event—such an approach could be a much closer fit and be accommodated within existing planning frameworks.
A point was made about anomalies. Of course, the tax system is full of anomalies and the question in many ways is which anomalies one seeks to eliminate—my hon. Friend wryly chuckles. Many of those anomalies exist in the nature of reliefs, and it would be an odd Financial Secretary indeed who wished to resolve an anomaly by creating another relief.
As a Government, we are committed to supporting the preservation of historic buildings and homes and the social and cultural contribution they make to our shared history. It is boilerplate but important to say that the Treasury keeps all taxes under review and is always willing to hear the case for what can be improved and refined. Even though we do not, at this time and for the reasons given, plan to change the VAT treatment of renovations or repairs, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate.
Craig Mackinlay
I thank all Members who took part in the debate. I want to clarify one area: the Minister said that a lower rate of VAT applies to certain energy-saving measures, but, according to my understanding of the types of properties under discussion, that is available only to those in receipt of a broad range of benefits. I understand that the lower rate is not available to those not in receipt of benefit.
Anneliese Dodds
My understanding is that there is still a reduction but it relates to the labour-materials ratio in the cost of the overall installation. There is a question about how many schemes fit within that, and the answer is possibly not very many.
Craig Mackinlay
I thank the hon. Member, who has clarified that it is a complicated area. I thank the Minister for his comments. Dare I say it, but I think I will be disappointed next week.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered VAT on listed properties.
Grand Committee
Pension Schemes Bill [HL]
Wednesday 4th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2021 View all Pension Schemes Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-IV Fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (2 Mar 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, I am obliged to make the usual announcement: that if there is a Division in the Chamber, this Committee will adjourn immediately for 10 minutes.
Amendment 80
Lord Balfe
“Compensation payments under Pension Protection Fund
In Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004 omit paragraphs 26, 26A and 27 (compensation cap).”
Lord Balfe (Con)
This is a rather technical amendment in many ways. I declare my interest as the president of the British Airline Pilots Association, one of the unions that would be affected by a change in the law such as is suggested here.
Members generally pay into pension schemes on the basis of putting so much in for an accrual rate, which gives them a pension. But if pensions go into the lifeboat, the amount that people can get out is limited. This ruling was originally done for a very good reason: to stop boards of directors awarding themselves large pensions, then a company going bust while they transferred the liability for their excesses into the lifeboat. However, it had an effect which I do not think was foreseen. There are a number of people in the private sector who have quite high earnings and are in pension schemes—at that time largely in DB schemes—and they were affected by this ruling. In short, it meant that people were paying into a scheme but not getting out what they had been paying in for. They were given a promise but it was not honoured, because of the cap that was put in place.
Amendment 80 seeks to review this cap. I accept that it is a complicated matter and would be more than happy if, in responding, the Minister can say that she is prepared to have this added to the subjects we are to discuss at the meeting which has been promised. I recognise that if we were to change the law, we cannot just abolish it. We would need to look at things; in particular, I suggest that we would need to erect some safeguards with reference to accrual rates, so that we would not allow an accrual rate above a reasonable level—possibly 2%. Any person affected would also have to be able to demonstrate that they had paid into the pension scheme over a number of years, and had not been awarded a lump sum of years just before the company went under. There would also have to be maximum contributions for tax relief. In other words, you could not suddenly have a huge contribution going in and building up a large amount of pension.
The amendment is basically aimed at enabling workers who have paid for a pension scheme but happen to be high earners to look forward to getting what they have paid for. I point out that, at the moment, the main people affected would be those who used to work for Monarch. But I would not like to predict where, for instance, the British Airways pension scheme will be 10 years from now. The Spanish company that is now the owner of BA might well be in a position where, for some reason or other, it is not able to fully honour the pension agreement. It is better to look at it now than to do so then.
I also make the point that most high earners in society are covered by public sector pension schemes. The people who work in the health service, for instance, are covered by the health service scheme; senior civil servants are covered by the civil service scheme; most people in the nuclear industry are covered by a public sector scheme. It is often forgotten that even in private schools, the staff are actually in a government-backed scheme. There is a lot of debate going on at the moment because the costs for private schools that pay into the Department for Education-funded scheme have increased considerably. None the less, teachers in private schools are covered by a public scheme.
As I said at the beginning, I ask only that the Minister would kindly agree to add this to the agenda. It is a problem that is capable of being solved. It is not quite as simple as my amendment suggests—I accept that—but putting forward this amendment was basically the only way of dealing with the scheme as it stands. Quite a bit of legislation, in the form of statutory instruments, would be needed to cover the way in which any deviation or loosening of the scheme was governed, because it is emphatically not the intention of this amendment to free up pension schemes so that irresponsible boards of directors could award themselves large pensions. This is to do with workers who have paid into a pension scheme for many years and are unwittingly caught by the cap because their employer is unable to fulfil its pension obligations.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I have added my name to this amendment. I support my noble friend and echo his request to the Minister for a meeting to discuss this issue further. I understand that it may not be possible to arrange immediately, and needs careful consideration, but, given the rulings in court cases and so on, it may be worth trying to address some of these issues, which are clearly causing distress to an important, albeit small, number of people.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, we have some difficulty with this amendment. We are more than happy to put it on the agenda for a meeting, although I recall earlier sessions when I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, convened a meeting with the pilots’ association for us to range over this. At that stage neither we nor the Government were particularly happy with any change—or the sort of change suggested here.
There is an issue about affordability for the PPF that has to be taken into account. We should also bear in mind that funding for the PPF comes from a levy on these other pension schemes, so the higher costs go the greater the hit on those schemes. As I understand it, the proposition is that it would cover not only those who receive a payment in future but all those currently receiving capped payments. It would free up those amounts, too.
I do not know whether the noble Lord has an impact assessment for this proposal; if so, we should certainly see that. Although he partially dismissed it in his speech, when the scheme was designed the moral hazard issue was very much in mind—heavy hitters and senior people in organisations are better able to control the destination of their pension funds and remuneration, and there should be a mechanism in there to ensure that the options were not open-ended. At the moment the cap bites, I think, at something like £40,000, so we are not talking about people with minimal pensions. I think the average payout from the PPF is about £4,000, so there is a big contrast. Having said that, I am more than happy to join a discussion to review these issues—but I am not convinced that we would change our position.
The PPF has done marvellous work over the years, enabling people to receive an income when there would have been nothing. It is a very good organisation. We may check to see whether its view now is different to its view previously, but I doubt it, so the onus is very much on the noble Lord to come forward with an impact assessment to say how much this would cost if we did it. Having said that, we on this side would not be able to sign up to it.
Baroness Altmann
I echo that praise for the Pension Protection Fund. It has been a marvellous success story and has rescued so many people. It is run efficiently and with care for those who claim on it. I cannot praise it highly enough.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, let me begin by thanking the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for this amendment. I believe that the intention is to improve member protection in the event of employer insolvency. The amendment would remove the Pension Protection Fund compensation cap currently applied to payments for members who were under their scheme’s normal pension age when their employer became insolvent.
It might be helpful if I first explain that the Pension Protection Fund is a compensation scheme and, as such, was never intended to meet the full pension promise made to every member of a failed scheme. Members over their scheme’s normal pension age and those who were in receipt of survivors’ benefits or an ill-health pension broadly receive full protection. Everyone else receives broadly 90% of their scheme benefits, subject to an overall cap. This means that the cap applies to early retirees as well as deferred members, ensuring that Pension Protection Fund compensation is calculated on the same basis for members of the same age in the same scheme.
It is worth mentioning that the Government are defending the cap before the domestic courts. Their position in this litigation, and current policy, is that the cap meets important objectives and should be retained. First, the cap helps to give greater protection to those who have reached their scheme’s normal retirement age at the time of employer insolvency. These members are likely to have fewer opportunities to supplement their income in other ways. Secondly, the cap helps to control the costs of the fund—costs that may otherwise fall on levy payers. Finally, as we have heard, the cap is intended to encourage people with influence over the schemes to fund them responsibly and to discourage excessive risk-taking. Key decision-makers have an incentive to ensure that their schemes stay out of the Pension Protection Fund because the cap is likely to have a direct impact on the compensation that they would receive.
The level of the cap was set after much research and analysis. The current full amount is around £40,000 at the age of 65. Members under their scheme’s normal pension age initially receive 90% of the capped amount, which equates to around £36,000 at the age of 65. Nevertheless, this far exceeds the estimated average defined benefit pension of around £8,000. Only a few members of the Pension Protection Fund are affected by the cap. The nature of the cap means that it affects predominantly high earners; abolishing it would, therefore, mainly benefit those high earners.
In conclusion, the cap is a necessary and proportionate means of achieving a number of significant policy aims in relation to the Pension Protection Fund compensation scheme. I hope that this provides sufficient reassurance to noble Lords, and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. At the same time, we would be more than happy to add this issue to the agenda for our meeting, which has been arranged for Thursday 12 March at 10 am.
Lord Balfe
I thank noble Lords for this short, but interesting, debate. An interesting part of my role is that when David Cameron said, “Try to be helpful to as many trade unions as you can”, I seem to have collected some of the higher paid trade unions such as those for hospital consultants, British airline pilots and one or two others in the TUC. It is always great fun to go down to the TUC Congress, meet them there and hear them muttering away. I take the points that have been made. The feeling arose largely out of the Monarch situation in which a number of people had paid a considerable amount in yet they were not getting what they saw as fair recompense. The point made to me, which I am sure will be made again, was that if they were in the public sector, there would be no case for them going into the Pension Protection Fund because public sector funds do not go there, but because they were in the private sector—
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The point the noble Lord makes about public sector funds is right, but in trying to make comparisons between somebody with a public sector pension and people who are not in that position, all sorts of differentials come into play, such as general levels of remuneration. With great respect, I do not think the noble Lord’s argument stands up in that respect.
Lord Balfe
Perhaps I mix with rather affluent members of the medical profession. I had a session recently with a hospital consultant staff association, which made some very firm points about how high earners were being discriminated against. I am not making the hospital consultants’ point here. I am making the point that the public sector basically has a system of protection so that when a Permanent Secretary or a member of the First Division Association retires, there is no case that the FDA pension will ever go into the lifeboat. I was making the point that was made to me, which was that members were paying into a fund that they were not receiving benefit from and that if they had been in the public sector they would. I am very pleased that the Minister has offered to discuss this, although having heard the response I am not sure that the discussion is going to lead very far. I am pleased that we have had this constructive debate and on the basis of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon the Minister’s amendment to insert a new Clause after Clause 123.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“Pension Schemes Commission
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must establish a Pension Schemes Commission to—(a) conduct a strategic review of public policy regarding pension schemes, and(b) make recommendations.(2) The Secretary of State must respond to reports from the Pension Schemes Commission with a written statement laid before each House of Parliament.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, it will not take us long to deal with this amendment. When it was conceived as an amendment, there was a fairly grand design behind it but, as time has moved on, it has perhaps condensed just to a statement of beliefs in the key issues. The amendment calls for the establishing of a pension schemes commission—I hesitate to raise that issue in the proximity of my noble friend Lady Drake; we live in awe of what that commissioner achieved. The idea of the commission would be to conduct a public policy review of pension schemes. There is plenty to reflect on without stepping on the policy responsibilities of the Minister, or indeed of any Select Committee.
In recent times we have experienced the implementation of a Pensions Commission and auto-enrolment; the new state pension; changes to state pension age; the so-called pensions freedoms; master trusts, CDCs, and the future of DB schemes; an increased focus on governance, transparency, levels of charges and the pension tax system. Some of this has reached a degree of maturity and some not; some has been seen in the strategic context, and some not. In respect of this, there remain the ongoing matters of gender equality, savings levels and, still, pensioner poverty. In addition, there is our consultation on investment principles and the important issue of climate change. Therefore there is scope in all of this to reflect in future pensions issues, and today I do no more than set down a list for consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I see that on the website of an organisation called This is Money, published on 20 January, Mr Opperman, who is of course the Minister with responsibility, is quoted as saying that he
“believes a new commission should review the future of the automatic enrolment system”.
Noble Lords may also remember that on 17 January, two think tanks, the Fabian Society and Bright Blue, launched a report calling for a cross-party commission on pensions. Responding to that, an organisation called B&CE published the following comments:
“Commenting, Guy Opperman MP, Minister for Pensions, said: ‘Over the last decade, Conservative and coalition governments have made huge strides to improve pensions for the next generation, with the introduction of auto-enrolment, an enhanced state pension and the development of the Pensions Dashboard. For the next stage of pension reform, we need to continue the consensus that emerged following the Pensions Commission of 2003 to 2005. A new Commission has cross-party support, and will help us map out the future of auto-enrolment, so we can boost contribution rates in the coming decades, and explore how we can support savers with pensions freedom reforms. Let’s not give up on the progress we’ve made in pensions through cross-party working. It’s time to explore ideas for the next generation’.”
It therefore seems that the thinking behind the proposed new clause in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has some support at the moment within the DWP.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, has done the job for me, but broadly speaking, I support this amendment. As well as what has already been elaborated, it plays into the feelings that have come up several times as we discussed the Bill as well; namely that, although the noble Earl has said that there is policy, a lot of implementation is also yet to come, and perhaps some of us feel that some policy is also yet to come. I therefore hope that a commission could come along subsequently and that it would be able to have an overview of some of the newer things as well as reviewing older things and looking forward. Therefore, I also support the notion of having this pension schemes commission.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister on this, but I confess that I have a little scepticism about this proposal. We have had many reviews of pensions, including the trailblazing Pensions Commission led originally by Adair Turner—the noble Lord, Lord Turner. Many changes have been made to the law, including auto-enrolment, which I think we in this Committee have all welcomed. Of course, those in the current Bill are important as we seek to tackle the issues raised by the BHS and Carillion cases and to introduce dashboards.
I am not convinced that this is the time for another commission and another review. I feel that this is the job of the Pensions Minister and the DWP. Quite a lot is going on in pensions, and the priority should be to make sense of the sort of issues we have discussed on this Bill or issues that arise on things such as exit from the EU, and to get on with those in a practical manner. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend. If she takes a different view, of course, I am happy to reconsider.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. We do not think there is a need for this new clause to be included in the Pension Schemes Bill, as legislation is not needed for a pension schemes commission to be established. The pensions landscape has changed considerably since the 2006 Pensions Commission; there have been major reforms to the UK pensions system. We have successfully rolled out auto-enrolment, introduced the flat-rate new state pension, abolished the default retirement age and raised state pension age.
The first independent review of state pension age was published in 2017, and this Government have committed to undertaking a review of state pension age every six years, in accordance with statutory requirements, to enable consideration of various factors, including the latest life expectancy projections. This Government are committed to maintaining a pension system that enables financial security for current and future pensioners. Further refinement and evolution will no doubt be needed in future to take account of changes in the labour market, home ownership and debt.
However, a commission is not the only way to identify and make recommendations for the future. We continue to engage extensively with key stakeholders, including consumer and employer organisations and the pensions industry, working collaboratively to identify and take forward a robust programme of work that builds on the strong foundations now in place.
For example, the Government carried out a review of the automatic enrolment scheme in 2017. Implementation of the review measures will be subject to learning from the recent workplace pension contribution increases; discussions with employers and others on the right approach; and finding ways to make these changes affordable. Once the evidence on our reforms is clear, we will look again at the right overall level of saving and the balance between prompted and voluntary saving. We are monitoring the impact of pension freedoms and the effectiveness of regulation of the market and information and guidance.
It is right that individuals are trusted with their own hard-earned money and savings. They are best placed to manage their money throughout retirement. While it is not the Government’s role to monitor individual people and the decisions they make, we recognise that it is important to support individuals in making decisions for their retirement. That is why we established the Pension Wise service to provide free and impartial guidance to help consumers make sense of their options.
This Government are focused on delivering and improving aspects of the existing pensions system. We are open to looking at aspects of the current system, but do not feel that an examination of the fundamentals of the pensions system is appropriate at this time.
My noble friend Lord Young made the point that my colleague, the Minister for Pensions, has shown support for a commission. Noble Lords are right to pay tribute to those who were part of the Pensions Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Turner, which was very successful at building consensus around the future of pensions policy. Although several individuals and groups have called for a pensions commission, there is currently little consensus about what the scope and structure of such a commission should be. We believe we can engage effectively with interested parties without needing another commission.
My noble friend Lord Young also mentioned Bright Blue and the Fabian Society calling for a pensions commission. Again, I understand that a number of key stakeholders have demonstrated their enthusiasm for a review of the pensions landscape.
I do not discount future reviews of some element of the pensions system. We have already undertaken some reviews and will no doubt undertake others. However, I believe that the fundamental structure of the pensions system, based on the recommendations from the Pensions Commission, is still valid.
Baroness Sherlock
I think I am right in saying that the argument for not proceeding was that there was no consensus around the aims or the remit. What attempt have the Government made to achieve consensus?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
The best answer I can give is that I will find out and write to the noble Baroness, because I do not have that information at the tip of my fingers.
The Bill will deliver further improvements, including strengthening consumer protections, improving scheme governance and communications, and facilitating the creation of pension dashboards. We will continue to review these improvements, including a contribution that a pensions commission could make in future. I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for her response on this matter and noble Lords who have spoken in favour of this proposition. For those who have felt unable to support it at the moment, I simply make the point that there is no particular timeline: it does not say that it must happen all at one time, or that it must happen tomorrow. There are clearly aspects of the current system which are unsatisfactory.
If I had to encapsulate that in two or three words, I would say that pensioner poverty and under-saving are still with us, big time. Somehow, we need to address that. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Tapered reduction of annual pension tax allowance: review
Within 6 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of how legislation and policy governing pension schemes could be adjusted to mitigate adverse effects of the tapered reduction of annual allowance under section 228ZA of Finance Act 2004, and lay a report before each House of Parliament.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 83, which sets a deadline for a review and is essentially probing in nature.
I am unashamed. I want to put pressure on the Government to do something—and fast—about the impact of the cap on senior or long-serving doctors and consultants. We have a mini-crisis here which dates back many months, and the situation is even more serious given the potential impact of Covid-19. I join others in commending the Secretary of State and the CMO for today’s all-party meeting, and for setting out all that is being done to manage this alarming virus—including encouraging clinicians out of retirement.
There is a pension problem. As my noble friend Lord Balfe told Parliament on 30 October, a BMA survey showed that 42% of GPs and 30% of hospital consultants were reducing their hours. There have been similar figures from the Royal College of Physicians. Doctors are attracting substantial tax bills to care for their patients, and are therefore reluctant to do extra sessions to clear waiting lists or to take on management. There are reports that as many as half our doctors are retiring younger than they used to and that the lowering of the annual allowance from £255,000 in 2010 to £40,000 today, and the increase in the retirement age to 65, may well be factors.
The situation is worse in hospitals than in GP practices, mainly because the latter earn less. However, GPs can be caught out if their practice income peaks temporarily because of a vacancy or because a doctor is missing. The reward for all the extra work and stress can be an extra tax charge. This is especially difficult for small practices, which, unfashionably, I have found to be the best, because they provide continuity of care, which saves on drugs bills and hospital costs. However, that is a matter for another day.
That brings me to hospital consultants, who are generally better paid than GPs but are critical to patient outcomes. I will never forget the lady consultant at King’s who managed me through the latter weeks of a pregnancy, when my youngest son refused to move.
The situation is serious. The impact of the coalition fix—to allow people to carry forward unused allowance from the previous three years—is, I think, running low. The DHSC consulted recently on proposals to allow senior medical staff to opt to build up a pension at a lower rate. This was, however, dismissed by the BMA as a sticking plaster. Understandably, it wants a change in the rules. As always, given the noises made by senior politicians, there is much hope—including on my part—about next week’s Budget.
What, therefore, can and should be done? I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords who have been kind enough to support this amendment, and from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, whose Amendment 86 proposes new regulations to ensure that NHS pension scheme members are reimbursed if they are worse off. I look forward to hearing how that would work.
Other approaches might include getting rid of the annual pension cap—the so-called annual allowance—and relying entirely on the lifetime allowance, which has been reduced over time. Alternatively, and perhaps more radically, we could move relevant senior medical staff on to non-pensionable pay, above a certain level, but pay them as salary the notional employer pension contribution that they miss out on. They would have a higher tax charge, but they would not be punished for working, which I think is the concern.
Many very intelligent people have spent hours trying to fix this problem, so it probably is not easy. There are ways to do it, and we must have a solution by the time this Bill reaches Report if the NHS is to overcome today’s growing challenges.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 86 is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Janke. It is a rather simple amendment for tackling a complex problem that is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has said, causing a great deal of damage to the NHS and to patients.
I will not go into the intricacies of the interrelationship between pensions and tax policy, or repeat the data that I laid out at Second Reading about how this is affecting doctors. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has given a reprise of some of that data. There is plenty of data showing the impact on doctors and the NHS; you do not have to look very far to find it. Noble Lords will therefore be relieved to hear that I will not go over that ground again.
The point of this amendment is to address what is happening on the ground now in our NHS. We have arrived at a situation in which doctors can neither control their pension growth nor predict their tax bills; that is where we have got to. Tax bills cannot be calculated until the end of the tax year in which the tax has been incurred; by then it is too late for doctors to adjust their earnings. In some cases, the tax bill exceeds the entire take-home pay that the doctor would earn in a given tax year. We are getting to the point where doctors have to pay to work: that is the situation we have created.
The only way that they can avoid the tax bills is to reduce their work in anticipation, which is what they are doing. I have previously set out the implications of that form of workload reduction, so I will not repeat them, but they include, in many cases, taking early retirement. The serious implications this has for patients and the running of the NHS needs no exaggeration. Suffice it to say that there has been a very large decrease in NHS medical clinical capacity, with very serious implications for patients and the functioning of the NHS. The latest BMA survey of 6,000 doctors shows that even more doctors, in this year and in the past, are planning to reduce their work commitments in the tax year, which is only a month or so ahead. This is why the situation is incredibly urgent.
This problem was so serious that NHS England acted to take the unprecedented step of agreeing to cover annual allowance payments for NHS doctors for the current tax year to try to ease the significant winter pressures on the NHS. At present, as far as I know, there is no plan to suggest that this short-term mitigation will continue into next year, let alone the longer term. It is all very well for the Government to pass last week an NHS Funding Bill, but if there is a serious shortage of doctors, it will not do patients much good.
The Government have been reviewing this problem for some time, but my information from the BMA and others is that they have not so far offered any worthwhile mitigation scheme. All that is available is the option of paying these large tax bills from future pensions by generating a loan against your pension which attracts a high rate of interest and effectively reduces your pension. This option will not reduce the outflow of doctors. Amendment 86 requires the Secretary of State to extend the NHS England scheme on a permanent basis. It also prevents doctors incurring any interest-bearing loans that will reduce their eventual pensions. It has been prepared with the help of the clerks, for which I am grateful, and discussed and agreed with the BMA and other professional bodies.
I am not saying that my amendment is the only solution to the problem—the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has given some other options—but it is an attempt to apply an urgent response to stop more doctors leaving the NHS or reducing their capacity. If the Government can come up with a better solution, I will be delighted. So far, there is no sign of a solution acceptable to the profession that would stop the NHS haemorrhaging doctors.
Let us remember again that the new tax year starts in a month, and that the coronavirus epidemic threatens all of us. I listened yesterday to the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary referring to bringing back retired doctors; that seems to be an important part of their emergency plan for dealing with a potential epidemic. I wonder how aware they and their No. 10 special advisers are of this own-goal lurking in the bureaucracy. We can ill afford to lose doctors from our NHS through a self-inflicted government muddle when a solution is to hand.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I too have signed both amendments which, as has been said, relate to the current situation of the punitive pension taxation on doctors in the NHS. The annual allowance means that retired doctors working additional hours may incur large tax bills even if they have had only a modest rise in pensionable pay; and the taper results in a further problem, as there is an effective tax cliff edge where people can incur additional tax bills of up to £13,500 if they cross the threshold by as little as a pound.
This huge disincentive to retired doctors who are working to fill staff shortfalls in the NHS has exacerbated the existing pressure. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, the impact was such that NHS England took the step of agreeing to cover the annual allowance payment for NHS doctors for this tax year as a temporary mechanism. As he also said, it seems that so far there are no plans for this to be a long-term solution.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I support Amendments 83 and 86. Noble Lords have already explained the problems in great detail. However, this crisis dates back more than two years. NHS hospitals and regional authorities have been trying for some time to deal with the fall-out of the taper and to find a resolution, but so far there has been no action. The Government promised action within 30 days last December, and we are still waiting. The doctors and medical staff in this scheme were given a promise, but it has not been honoured because of flawed attempts to save money on pension tax reliefs for so-called high earners. Yet the costs resulting from the unintended consequences of the legislation—I understand the thrust of that legislation—in paying locums, cancellations and inadequate NHS services may well outweigh any savings that might have been achieved by trying to clamp down on high earners.
I was at a BMA consultants’ conference today, giving a presentation on pensions. In a room seating around 400, those consultants decided to have an emergency vote and it was unanimous in favour of urgent government action, such as Amendment 86 being introduced. There was clear anger around the room at what they feel is a betrayal of their terms and conditions of service. They had no warning of the changes in tax relief, which were said to affect only those earning more than £150,000 a year; in fact, the way that the cliff edge and the threshold work means they have hit people earning a lot less than that. They were given no chance to mitigate their losses. In the private sector or in other government schemes some mitigations have been offered, but not for the NHS.
In any case, the rules of this taper make it impossible to predict what tax bill you might incur as a result of being asked to take on extra work because it depends on your current year’s earnings, which you will not know until the end of the current year. The Government could consider using last year’s earnings; at least one might have a fighting chance of knowing what extra work one might be able to take on. The scheme-pays arrangement, whereby it is possible that staff will not have to pay the charge, is a loan at around 6% interest that rolls up every year. Some consultants in their 40s were explaining to me today how that feels so penal. One could imagine changing that interest rate, for example.
The bottom line is that even the NHS pension scheme was unable to provide the staff with the information that they, or their advisers, would have needed to predict what the tax consequences of the work they were doing might have been. If they do not know what the impact will be, it is logical that they are not going to do the work. I understand that the plan in the Budget may well be for the Government to increase the threshold and introduce a bit more flexibility. I can assure the Committee that if that is the plan, it will not solve the problem.
The proposal in Amendment 86 is a practical way in which doctors can be reassured that if they carry out extra work, especially in the current extreme medical environment that we may well be facing, they will not be penalised taxation-wise and pension-wise for doing so. This amendment might not fit precisely in the Bill, but I would be grateful to hear from my noble friends what the reaction is to the proposed method of dealing with this problem. If the Bill represents, as the BMA said in its briefing, a valuable opportunity to find a resolution to this long-running problem then I hope that it will be able to address the issue, and put our NHS and our most valuable medical staff back on an even keel.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this issue has been rumbling around for far too long and it is time to try to get a solution to it, particularly, as many noble Lords have explained, because of the pressure that the NHS would have been under anyway but for the recent crisis. My noble friend Lord Warner made a strong case with his proposition and we would certainly like to reflect on it. I know that the problem is that lots of people have reflected from time to time on a possible solution. That reflection goes on, but we do not yet have a solution. But Report on this Bill will be coming up shortly, and of course we have a Budget of some sort not far in the distance.
I have a couple of questions. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Warner or the Minister can help with them. Was the one-off payment that the NHS made to cover the annual allowance taxable, and what might the consequences of that be? Under the scheme-pays arrangement, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, hinted, if the problem is the penal interest rate then what is to stop those rates being adjusted, and who controls them?
We also need to bear in mind in all this is that these rules, unless I misunderstand them, have general application in the tax system. We need either to find a way of having some special arrangements or to accept that the adjustments we make here would have to be run for the tax system generally. We will need to work through the consequences of that. I am conscious that this contribution has not added one bit of sense to a practical solution, which is what we need to reach. Maybe, at the end of the day, we simply need to rank the solutions that we have on the table and choose the best, even though that may not be optimisation.
I am sure we all remember the pressure about this—I certainly remember pressure from the old Luton and Dunstable Hospital about it—and the real adverse effect that it causes on the delivery of services. We cannot continue to allow that to go forward; we simply have to drive through a solution to this. That is the challenge; presumably, the Treasury has ultimate responsibility for meeting it. But if it will not then we should, with the help of my noble friend Lord Warner and his expertise in these areas.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the amendment from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe would commit the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to review the tapered annual allowance on tax-relieved pension savings and require the Secretary of State to set out how pension schemes could mitigate any adverse effects of the taper. On the other hand, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, would commit the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make regulations to require the NHS pension schemes to reimburse members for pension tax charges and, in particular, annual allowance charges.
I will set out where matters currently stand on this. First, in recognition of the impact that the tapered annual allowance is having for some doctors this year, NHS England has announced—as has been mentioned —a special arrangement for 2019-20 only, which doctors in England can use to ensure that they will not be worse off as a result of taking on extra shifts this tax year. This arrangement allows senior clinicians to defer an annual allowance charge through scheme pays. Their NHS employer will make a contractually binding commitment to pay a corresponding amount on retirement, ensuring that they are fully compensated in retirement for the effect of the scheme-pays deduction on their retirement income.
Health is a devolved matter. This special arrangement applies only to England, but we are aware that the Welsh Government and NHS Scotland have also put arrangements in place for the current tax year.
The Government most certainly recognise that urgent action is needed to resolve the pensions tax issue, which has caused some doctors to turn down extra shifts for fear of high tax bills. We are committed to ensuring that hard-working NHS staff do not find themselves reducing their work commitments due to the interaction between their pay, their pension and the relevant tax regime. That is precisely why the Government are taking forward their manifesto commitment to carry out an urgent review of the pensions tapered annual allowance, to make sure that doctors spend as much time as possible treating patients. This builds on the Treasury’s review into the effect of the tapered annual allowance on public service delivery, announced last August. The Government have announced that these reviews will report at the Budget on 11 March.
I understand that the ongoing reviews have received evidence from the British Medical Association, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and other representative organisations from across the public and private sectors. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury has held round-table discussions with key health sector stakeholders, as well as representative organisations across the public sector. The evidence provided will ensure that the Government can consider fully the impact of the tapered annual allowance and its effects on the NHS and other public services.
The amendment from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe would have the Government commit to yet another review of matters relating to the tapered annual allowance. I hope she will accept that there is no need for a further exploration of this matter when the two reviews are ongoing and have not yet concluded, especially as those reviews will report shortly.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, would commit the NHS pension scheme administrators to reimburse their members to the extent they had incurred an annual allowance tax charge. The practical difficulty with this, which I am sure the noble Lord does not intend, is that reimbursement from the scheme for tax charges could trigger an unauthorised payments tax charge for the member and a scheme sanction charge for the scheme. Noble Lords will appreciate that this is a very complicated area of tax law and, as I have said, could result in further unforeseen tax charges arising.
The noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord McKenzie, referred to the interest rate being applied in this area. Perhaps I could just explain the background to this. HMRC rules require that when scheme pays is used to pay a tax charge, an actuarially fair reduction is made to the value of the pension. The discount rate used to value this reduction for public service pension schemes is the SCAPE discount rate plus CPI. The SCAPE discount rate reflects the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts for long-term GDP growth in line with established methodology. Due to recent changes to the SCAPE rate and the CPI, the scheme-pays discount rate has fallen in 2019 to 4.8%.
My suggestion to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is that it is preferable to wait for the outcome of the two reviews, which are ongoing but have not yet concluded. As I mentioned, they will report shortly, on 11 March. Ultimately, this is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor. I am sorry to have to leave matters in the air, but I hope that my noble friend and the noble Lord will take away from this a good degree of reassurance that the Government are taking seriously the question of what impact the tapered annual allowance is having on NHS pension scheme members and that reviews into this matter are already under way.
Baroness Altmann
I take my noble friend’s point on the specific proposals in Amendment 86 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, which I have signed. However, were the amendment to be redrawn to suggest that an extension of the current arrangements for 2019-20 be brought forward also into 2020-21, would that address my noble friend’s concerns about the unauthorised scheme payment and the charges to the scheme? We could time-limit this but also address the urgency, because even if something is reported in the Budget, it is unlikely that the staff will have the reassurance for the forthcoming tax year, which is only a few weeks away.
Lord Warner
I just want to amplify the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. Those of us who have been around in government for some years know that the announcement of review reports in Budgets do not necessarily mean that anything in those reviews will be rapidly implemented. My suspicion would be that any such reviews would have a longish period of consultation and would not appear in the next finance Bill—that is a likely outcome. Building on what the noble Baroness said, I need to go back to my clients—if I may put it that way—who will want to know what the position is. If I prove to be right over what happens on 11 March, would the Government be willing to consider something along the lines of buying two to three years for the NHS doctors? Will they help me get the wording right, so that it does not fall into the elephant traps that the Minister has set out? When we get to Report, we cannot just leave this; we have to come back to this issue with some credible solution. I would be delighted if the announcement on 11 March delivered a quick response, but if we do not deliver a response that covers the next two financial years, we will put the NHS in great peril.
Earl Howe
My Lords, my answer to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has to be exactly the same as that which I have already given. I can do no other than urge all noble Lords to wait for the Budget announcement. I cannot comment on what ideas the Chancellor has in front of him on this issue. Those ideas may or may not include those that have been articulated by my noble friend and the noble Lord—I do not know. I suggest that we get past next week and then take stock. No doubt noble Lords will consider how best to approach this on Report, if they feel that to be necessary.
Baroness Janke
The Minister said that these two reviews will be reported in the Budget. Is he talking about the intention to conduct a review or saying that the outcomes of reviews that have already been conducted will be announced in the Budget?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, we have had a good debate and I think we have made it very clear that action is urgently needed in the NHS area. It goes wider, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, but my amendment was a probing amendment—of the kind that I could get through the clerk—about these problems in the NHS, particularly now that we have the added threat of coronavirus. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, put it very well. It is an own goal lurking in the bureaucracy, although if you look on the internet it is quite easy to find the scale of the problem.
Doctors are having to pay to work and can hit a tax cliff-edge, as the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, said—through no fault of their own, it seems to me—and are not able to forecast exactly when that cliff-edge might occur. It is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. My noble friend Lady Altmann, with her forensic knowledge of the sector, has pointed out that the problem is now some two years old and that the Government made a promise to resolve it. As the Deputy Leader made clear, we must wait to see what the Budget says, but I would like to be clear that I think all of us will want to return to this issue if we feel that we have not made progress in the Budget on 11 March. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Warner
“National Health Service Pension Schemes: tax charges
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision to ensure that the National Health Service Pension Schemes reimburse their members for pension tax charges to the extent necessary to fulfil the objective of subsection (2).(2) The objective of this subsection is that in any tax year, for a member of the National Health Service Pension Schemes, the member’s income less annual allowance pension tax charges is not smaller if the member’s income is greater.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Lord Warner
I wish to respond to the Minister before I withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
Once the noble Lord has spoken, the question has to be put.
Lord Warner
I thought that I am allowed to say whether I am withdrawing the amendment.
Baroness Fookes
It has not yet technically been moved, and you are now moving it. Perhaps I should clarify for the Committee that where there is a group of amendments being debated together, only the first amendment is moved. If a noble Lord wishes to move an amendment, it has to come in its numerical order. The noble Lord was not moving his amendment, he was speaking to it.
Baroness Fookes
Yes, he must move it, because he has started to speak to it.
Lord Warner
I beg to move Amendment 86. In response to the Minister, I think we will need to have some kind of meeting after 11 March, which may involve some of the parties who are very anxious about this. I hope the Minister will take away that thought and get back to me, and to others, when he has had time to consider.
Baroness Fookes
If no member of the Committee wishes to respond, the noble Lord may withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Fookes
I am sorry about the schoolmistressy lesson on the subject.
Baroness Janke
“Automatic enrolment age
In section 3(1)(a) of the Pensions Act 2008, for “22” substitute “18”.”
Baroness Janke
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group. Amendments 87 and 88 relate to auto-enrolment to reduce the lower age limit to 18 and introduce a review of auto-enrolment which could also examine the possibility of removing the lower earnings limit.
As many noble Lords have said, the success of auto-enrolment is clear, with 87% of eligible employees participating in a workplace pension in 2018. However, by reducing the lower age limit to 18 and removing the lower earnings limit, a further £2.5 billion could be added to savings.
There would also be advantages for younger people in starting to save for pensions earlier in their working lives. It is estimated that the average 18 year-old will end up with a pension pot at retirement around £18,000 lower if they have to wait until 22 to be automatically enrolled. Given that we want people to start saving for a pension as soon as possible, an age limit of 22 seems increasingly hard to defend. Even employers would generally have a simpler system were they to enrol everyone, rather than having different rules for those above and below different age thresholds.
Moreover, further extending the coverage of auto-enrolment by reducing the earning threshold to the national insurance primary threshold would bring 480,000 people, mostly women, into pension-saving. It would also help to improve the gender pensions gap, which is the subject of Amendment 96 in the same group and a growing matter of concern. A woman aged 65 has one-fifth of a 65 year-old man’s pension.
Private pension schemes seem to be the main reason for the gender gap, placing women at a disadvantage, mainly due to domestic roles and lower pay. Among 65 to 74 year-olds, median private pension wealth is £164,700 for men and £17,300 for women, who have just over 10% of the private pension wealth of men. Among the population as a whole, women’s median pension wealth is £4,300, less than a quarter of the £19,800 held by men.
Although auto-enrolled private pensions include all employers, they exclude low-paid employees. Like other private pensions, they make no allowance for periods of caring, hence they perpetuate further the pensions gender gap. New modelling has shown that a family carer top-up in an auto-enrolled pension would substantially boost women’s private pension wealth. Also, the suggestion of a voluntary earnings-related state pension addition—a fully portable auto-enrolled option that allows carer credits—would be simpler and would better meet women’s need for extra pension savings. Amendment 96 provides the opportunity for an early review of issues affecting the pensions gender gap in CMP schemes.
I support the amendments in the group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, which address similar and related issues. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, Amendment 95 in this group is in my name. It seeks to press the Minister to make three important changes to the current auto-enrolment scheme—there are some overlapping issues in this. The changes are: to remove the threshold requirement for earnings over £10,000 to be auto-enrolled; to remove the qualifying earnings deduction; and to extend the threshold down to the age of 18 for workers. As NOW: Pensions points out, these would be positive steps in helping to narrow the pensions gender gap and would be a significant step in boosting participation in pension saving. This should be uncontroversial, as it goes with the flavour of the deliberations of the 2017 automatic enrolment review.
However, on timing, the Government’s ambition is to phase in the abolition of the LEL, with broader changes to the framework, until the mid-2020s. We suggest that this is a weak ambition and urge the Government to reconsider. We recognise that the changes cannot all happen overnight, but the longer we wait, the more difficulty there will be in getting younger people into the savings habit. Abolition of the LEL and making contributions payable from the first £1 of earnings will help to build financial resilience. If implemented, these measures would eventually—I stress “eventually”—bring an additional 910,000 workers into auto-enrolment with, as we have heard, an additional £3.8 billion of pension savings. It would be a good first step in addressing the pensions gender gap.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 90 and 91, which carry further the spirit of Amendment 96, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. My amendments call on the Secretary of State, within six months of the passage of the Bill, to conduct two reviews: on how legislation could provide for people to receive a contribution towards auto-enrolment pension savings when they are relevant carers—what is now popularly called the carers’ top up—and on the sex equality impacts of auto-enrolment in workplace schemes and how legislation and policy could correct any inequalities identified.
I start by giving recognition to the DWP and the Pensions Regulator for the successful rollout of auto-enrolment. It is true that many more people, including women, are now saving, but various sources of data evidence show a persisting gender pensions gap. The message, whatever the source of the data, is the same. The gap arises from design features in the pension system and as a consequence of the systemic problems that too many women and carers face. In summary, carers are subject to a financial penalty in their income and pension because they are undertaking caring responsibilities, which is reinforced by stereotyping, cultural norms and employer behaviour.
Some newly published research on pensions by the Pensions Policy Institute, which was sponsored by the master trust Now: Pensions, puts the case for further reforms and reveals that on average, women have 55% lower pension income than men. The average annual private pension income for men aged 55 plus is £8,620; for women, it is £3,920—a considerable gap. Despite the record number of women in employment—now 72.4%—many will reach retirement age with significantly less. The figures vary, but they are in the same ballpark of £100,000 less saved than men. Women are more likely to work part-time or take time out of work while caring for children or, further down the line, to care for elderly or ill relatives, leaving them with interrupted pension contributions and limited earnings opportunities. Inequalities experienced during working-age life deliver lower incomes in retirement. Even when women work full-time, they still, on average, earn almost £6,000 less than men.
There are compelling figures here: 36% of women in the labour force work part-time. Of the 13.4 million employed women in the UK, around 3 million—23%—fall below the qualifying earnings threshold of £10,000 in any given job to get access to the benefits of auto-enrolment. Only about 37% of the population eligible for auto-enrolment are women.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is campaigning on how the tax system disadvantages a significant number of low-paid women and men, consequently reducing their pension pots. Millions of people at some point in their lives will have given up work or worked part-time to care, most of them being women. Carers’ savings pots are not only smaller, but evidence shows they are often used to cover the cost of the caring they are undertaking. The economic contribution of carers is still insufficiently recognised in UK public policy.
We need women to have children. If they did not, the economic consequences would soon become apparent. We need carers to take responsibility for kinship children, saving the taxpayer considerable cost. If carers did not look after their elderly or disabled relatives, the health and social care cost borne by the state would rise exponentially. In fact, Carers UK estimates that the economic value of the contribution made by carers in the UK is £132 billion a year.
Caring responsibilities impact carers’ participation in the labour market, but they also damage their long-term earnings potential—it just carries on through. It is estimated that for each year out of employment, the hourly wages of women decrease by approximately 2% for women with A-levels or above, and 4% for women with fewer qualifications. Amendment 90 is directed at a reform whereby a carer’s financial credit is paid through the social security system towards their private pension. I will take a little time on this because there is quite a big community out there which believes that this is an important issue and really wants Parliament to hear its strength of feeling on it.
Prior to the introduction of the flat-rate new state pension in 2016, carers were credited with entitlements in both the first-tier basic state pension and the second-tier state earnings-related pension. However, now that the earnings-related system has transferred out of the state to the workplace pension provision through auto-enrolment, that second-tier carer’s pension has been lost, It has just gone; it sort of fell through the crack in the totality of reforms. We had a hard-fought victory for women to secure the public policy principle that caring was an economic contribution for which pension credits were given in both tiers of the pension system—the basic tier and the earnings-related tier. Until that principle was restored, carers had been relatively disadvantaged, adding to the pensions gap. I am a bit reluctant to start in 1902, but if we start with the fight to get women these carer’s credits in both the pension systems, when the earnings-related system was introduced in 1975, something called the home responsibilities protection was introduced, It was not as good as a full carer’s credit but it was a start, although it applied only to the basic state pension. Then in the Conservatives’ Social Security Act 1986 they planned to extend that home responsibilities protection to the second-tier earnings-related pension but they never laid the regulation, so it never happened.
Rowing forward, we had the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, which introduced the second state pension to replace the existing SERPS earning-related element. It provided for carer’s credit for the second earnings-related pension in addition to the state pension. That was a victory. A lot of hard work went into winning that principle, and it applied to carers who looked after a disabled person for more than 35 hours a week or a child under six, but still people argued that it should be improved again beyond that. In the Pensions Act 2007, which, importantly, brought in a major part of the state and auto-enrolment reforms, carer’s credits and how they operated for the basic state pension and the earnings-related element were improved considerably for carers of children up to the age of 12 and the qualifying threshold for carer’s credits for caring for disabled people was lowered to 20 hours.
Those principles, that you credit carers because it is an economic activity—it is a real contribution to the economy—and that you do it in both the basic state pension and the earnings-related pension, were a victory that people thought they had banked, but suddenly, as a consequence of the reforms, that crediting is only in the basic state pension—it no longer exists through auto-enrolment and workplace pensions. The Fawcett Society, along with an increasing number of other organisations—there is quite a build-up of consensus around this—supports the introduction of a carers’ top-up, re-establishing the principle that people thought had been achieved and consolidated in 2007.
A seminal report from Insuring Women’s Futures, the product of a voluntary market-led programme under the Chartered Insurance Institute, looked at improving women’s financial resilience. It has brought in a range of people—business leaders, policy experts, regulation experts, academics and so on—and looks at the root causes of women’s lack of financial resilience.
I am probably using a lot of words to say it, but the report basically says that more needs to be done to allow all women access to pensions, to support women in attaining an adequate pension—reflecting their whole contribution to society and the economy—and to allow them to enjoy pensions parity in the workplace. It also says that the complexity of pensions, together with the wider financial risks in life that have an impact on women’s pensions journey, means that women need differentiated support and guidance at moments that matter, such as when they step out from or step down in their engagement with the labour market because they are doing the economically important job of caring.
Much was achieved by auto-enrolment—it is tempting to say that I would say that—and the Government were right to focus their energies on its successful implementation. I never argued with a Conservative Minister who said, “That is the priority and that is what we must do”; that was right. However, this gap in the pension position of many women relative to men persists, and there is a growing consensus—it is not just a few arbitrary voices—saying that the issue needs fresh attention.
A principle embedded in the reform of state and private pensions is that women should accrue retirement income in their own right. That is reflected in the fact that, since 2016, women no longer accrue state pension rights through their spouse’s entitlement and that, in a DC world and with pension freedoms, women’s hopes of depending on their partner’s accrued long-term savings are much weaker. The environmental factors shout out that the Government have been successful in consolidating auto-enrolment. However, this is an area of outstanding weakness and needs a new look because, in summary, women make a huge economic contribution by caring, for which they face financial penalties. There is an expectation that they will accrue pensions in their own right, but the support given to them to achieve that still has significant weaknesses.
My amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, ask the Government to review and report on the nature of the pensions gap and on further measures to address it, because the demographics clearly show that the one thing that the state depends on is that women will be carers—even more so going forward. However, as a consequence, they end up with reduced financial resilience when they come to retirement.
I am conscious of there being competing issues on Report; there are some very important issues in this Bill that noble Lords wish to return to. I am trying to take that into account. There is, however, a growing consensus. It is not aggressive; it is just saying—as I saw when I ran through the history of how we built up the carer’s credit—that the Government need to give this attention. There is consolidated auto-enrolment and a range of areas where the Government are reviewing what they can do, but they have not put centre stage how efficiently this is working for carers; they need to look at that.
Again, conscious of the competing demands on Report, I urge the Government to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, and myself as positively as they can to show those communities that are building up together—the gender alliance can be quite formidable when it gets truly organised—that there is a responsiveness that says, “Yes, we will review these issues.” I have loads of emails that say, “I am so glad you are raising this”, and, “Say this and say that.” I have probably overindulged and not covered half the list of things that people want to say. They will, however, be listening to the Government’s response because they want the Government at least to accept that they should give some attention to this issue again.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I want to ask a few questions on the back of that. I thank my noble friend Lady Drake and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for raising these issues. It is good to hear some attention being given to the fact that we have a significant problem about women and pensions. I would have liked to see the Bill take the opportunity to do something for the women born in 1950s who lost out so much when the state pension age was raised so sharply. Given that it has not done that, at least the calls for review may give an opportunity to look at the wider range of issues.
The statistics we have heard are really quite stark. If there is that huge a gap in pension wealth between men and women, the situation will only get worse. It is clearly something that the Government need to do something about.
I want to pick up on a couple of specifics. One is the issue of people with multiple jobs below the earnings threshold. This is the point at which I miss most acutely my friend Lady Hollis of Heigham, who raised this at any given opportunity. I feel that her memory is forcing me to do so now, otherwise I could not go back to my office and sit down with any peace. I ask the Minister to comment on that. We see people with multiple jobs—many are women, of course—none of whom make the threshold but who would be over the threshold if their incomes were added up, not getting into auto-enrolment. I worry that this group will keep rising as a result of part-time working and zero-hours contracts. Even the DWP, for example, encourages those on universal credit to take extra jobs to top up their hours or income. What are the Government doing about this? Do they have a sense of the scale of the problem and the direction of travel?
Secondly, I want to say a word about my noble friend’s case on carers. Clearly, women are more likely to work part-time because of caring responsibilities. That is a clear issue for public policy. A society needs women’s reproductive capabilities and their caring work. Women, in turn, deserve to be able to live adequately in retirement. I was delighted to hear my noble friend detail how we got here, not just because I probably have more of an appetite for social security detail than is strictly socially acceptable. If we do not take the time to work out how we got here, we will lose this in future. Those rights were hard-won. It took a long time, step by step, to get the caring responsibilities of women recognised in all parts of the state pension system; then they somehow got lost in the Government’s reforms. I am sure that that was not the intention and I have no doubt that the Government will come back and say, “Yes, but people will get these bigger amounts and more of them will get a full pension”, but that makes no difference. One would get those whether one was a carer or not. They have still lost any recognition of those caring responsibilities in the second state pension. Have the Government looked at the idea of a carer’s top-up, which has been around for a while? If so, what is their response to it? If they do not like it, what is their proposal for addressing this issue?
On Monday, we discussed in Committee Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. It recommended that a member of a scheme should not be allowed to use the pension freedoms to transfer out without the consent of his or her spouse or civil partner. I asked whether the Minister would go away, talk to the department, take some advice and return to it during today’s debate, which she kindly agreed to do. Can the Minister give us a reaction? Has the department established that there is an issue, and what is it doing about it? That would be really helpful.
My noble friend Lady Drake said the gender pay gap will not close until 2050 and pension parity will therefore not be reached until something like 2100. We just cannot wait that long. This is a matter of public policy, economics and societal need, but it is also a basic issue of justice. What are the Government going to do about it?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the amendments tabled in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Drake, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, all concern automatic enrolment into workplace pensions.
Amendment 87 would lower from 22 to 18 the minimum age at which a qualifying worker would be eligible to be automatically enrolled by making a change to the Pensions Act 2008.
Amendment 88 would require the Secretary of State to lay a report on the effectiveness of our pension reforms within six months of this Bill becoming law. That review would mandate government to consider the minimum age at which qualifying workers must be automatically enrolled, the minimum level of pension contributions and whether existing legislation offers sufficient opportunity for low-paid workers to save for retirement. The Secretary of State would then have to make a recommendation about whether to bring forward new legislation in the light of its findings.
Amendment 95 would make changes to the criteria for a qualifying worker in automatic enrolment, known as a jobholder. These would lower the minimum age for a worker to be automatically enrolled from 22 to 18, abolish the £10,000 automatic enrolment trigger and make pension contributions payable from the first £1 of earnings.
Perhaps I may begin with the proposed changes to the automatic enrolment criteria. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would abolish the £10,000 automatic enrolment trigger. The Government review the operation of the trigger annually under the statutory automatic enrolment thresholds review. That approach means that a range of factors can be assessed, including affordability for employers and whether it pays to save for individuals. Since 2014-15, we have frozen the trigger at £10,000, which has expanded coverage each year due to wage growth. In the tax year 2020-21, this will see an extra 80,000 people brought into pension saving, of whom around three-quarters will be women. This is surely one policy area where we should aim to ensure that we proceed on the basis of sound evidence. We do not have evidence at this time that would support the abolition of the trigger. So, I am afraid that the Government cannot support this amendment.
Turning to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, which would reduce the minimum age to 18 and require pension contributions to be paid from the first £1 of earnings, the Government’s 2017 review of automatic enrolment—Maintaining the Momentum —has already set out our next steps in this area. The core proposals are a reduction in the minimum age for being automatically enrolled to 18 and the removal of the automatic enrolment lower earnings limit.
Our review involved extensive engagement with interested parties, including consultation, and was supported by an expert advisory group. Its conclusions were robust and remain correct. However, we have also been clear that these ambitions must be subject to learning from the contribution increases and finding the right approach to implementation. The timetable cannot be forced without risking both the consensus that we have achieved and the very significant policy achievements that have, rightly, been lauded across this House. Therefore, again, the Government cannot support these amendments.
I turn now to Amendments 90 and 91, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and Amendment 96, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. They relate to the gender pensions gap and automatic enrolment. Since the introduction of automatic enrolment, workplace pension participation for all women employed full-time in the private sector— not only those eligible for automatic enrolment—has increased from 35% in 2012 to 83% in 2019. This is now the same as the participation rate for men, compared with 2012 when the participation rate for men was six percentage points higher. Our aim remains to increase the level of retirement saving across all groups. The 2017 review ambitions strengthen the framework of workplace pension saving for lower-paid workers, many of whom are women working part-time. As I have already made clear about the implementation, we will remain guided by evidence.
Amendment 90 would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review within six months of passing the Bill. The review would consider how to legislate to provide automatic enrolment contributions to people with caring responsibilities as parents or carers, with reference to a target group.
The new state pension system—introduced for people who reached state pension age from 6 April 2016 onwards—took forward the existing national insurance crediting arrangements. These included the credits brought into effect by Section 23A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. The majority of people providing care and those who build a qualifying year for their state pension through the carer’s credit are women. The design of the new state pension means that, on average, women, those in lower-paid work and self-employed people receive higher outcomes than under the previous system.
More than 3 million women stand to receive an average of £550 more per year by 2030 as a result of the recent reforms. Women benefit most from the new state pension. Average weekly state pension payments for women are £152.44 under the new system, compared with £135.24 under the previous system. Outcomes are projected to equalise with those for men more than a decade earlier than they would have done under the previous system.
Under the system that operated from 2010 to 2016, people who were caring for more than 20 hours a week could claim the carer’s credit for additional state pension in addition to building qualifying years of the state pension. The full rate of the new state pension is more than £40 a week higher than the full basic state pension. As a result, unless someone had received carer’s credits for the majority of the 35 years of national insurance needed for the state pension, it is unlikely that they would have been in a better position than they will be now under the new state pension.
A key objective of the new state pension was to increase outcomes for women and lower-paid earners, accelerating the equalisation of state pension outcomes for men and women. The new state pension is successfully achieving these objectives. The settlement made in 2016 is building a clearer, simpler foundation for people’s private pension saving and we do not intend to reopen it.
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, is concerned that parents and carers who are not working will miss out on automatic enrolment. Most parents and carers will work before or after periods of caring, or will combine part-time work with caring. The introduction of automatic enrolment has helped workers to build on the foundation of the state pension, while implementation of the 2017 review measures will enable them to build up more savings when they are working, improving their financial resilience in retirement. The amount being saved would be transformative: a national living wage earner with a 10-year career break could see an 88% increase in their pot size at retirement.
Amendments 91 and 96 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review within six months of the Bill becoming law, concerning the sex equality impacts of the current framework. I always read amendments carefully but, if I may speak on a slightly lighter note, Amendment 91—tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake—shows how important it is to read to the end of every sentence. When I first looked at it, I thought that it sought to ensure that the Secretary of State conducts a review of differences between men and women, which, it struck me, could be rather a lengthy exercise—but that is not the case at all. If one reads the amendment in full, it is a model of clarity in referring to a number of specified groups and I want to be serious in addressing it.
Amendment 91 would require the Secretary of State to make recommendations on how legislation and policy could correct any inequalities in automatic enrolment. Amendment 96 relates to the impact of public policy regarding pension schemes on women and the action being taken by government to close the pensions gap between men and women, with recommendations for possible further legislation.
The Government already carry out and publish a range of analysis and evaluation in relation to these matters, and benefit from valuable external evidence. The department currently evaluates the gender impact of changes to automatic enrolment policy on participation—in our annual thresholds review, for example, where this year we estimated that three-quarters of the employees made eligible by the freezing of the trigger were women. We measure and publish statistics on participation rates by gender. We carry out regular monitoring of the rates of stopping saving by gender. We also draw on a wide range of evidence across and outside government on the gender pensions gap, while working closely with the Government Equalities Office.
All that should, I hope, indicate to noble Lords that this is not a matter that we will just let drift and then monitor at some point in the future. We do so regularly as we go along, and in some detail. Outside of DWP’s evaluation of automatic enrolment—AE, if I may call it that—data and analysis of the gender pensions gap is produced from various sources across government. We will continue to draw on this evidence alongside our developing evaluation of AE, post phasing, to assess the impact of AE on the gender pensions gap.
Baroness Drake
I want to take the first opportunity to come back on this because I am conscious that a lot of people are interested in this debate.
I am a little disappointed that the major part of the Minister’s contribution was a bit of a push-back, saying that the Government are all over this and that this is fine when evidence for that is not there. He did become more conciliatory at the end; I hope that the department find a way to bring together an eclectic group of people.
I simply disagree with some of the things that the Minister said. In reference to the small pots, the DWP did a great deal of work on the earnings threshold. It was set at a much lower level based on the DWP’s work, though perhaps not under the current Administration. In the review that led to that threshold going up—originally, it would have gone up to as high as £12,500 if a stroppy group of Peers had not turned up every time automatic enrolment earnings threshold regulations came before the House; in the end, somebody waved the white flag and said, “Oh, freeze it, we can’t face that lot every year”—the reason given, which is on the record, is that if you take it lower than £10,000, it produces small pots, which are inefficient to the industry. Well, that is irrelevant. This is a piece of public policy for mass coverage. That is what made me so angry. It was not based on a gender analysis; it was based on inefficiency in the industry. I invite noble Lords to go back to the report that gave the reason for raising that earnings trigger. There is evidence there. It may be that more modelling or more debate about the behavioural impact of coming significantly below the trigger is needed, but that work was done by the DWP. It may have a different view now but its view a few years—perhaps 10 years—back presented the evidence in a different way.
I do not disagree with the Minister that automatic enrolment has had a real benefit for women—if they are in the eligible population. If they are not, they cannot be among the people gaining from the upside of auto-enrolment. Many carers are precisely the people who are not in the eligible population.
I entirely accept that for a lot of women, an absolute improvement arose as a result of the new state pension, but the pension gap—the pay gap—is about relativity. If you give a man a pay rise of £10 and you give a woman a rise of £5, you can stand up and assert, “The woman is £5 better off: let us celebrate!”. What you have missed is that the pay gap has increased, because the man got £10. The benefits of the single state pension improve the relative position of a lot of people, not just the low-paid but huge numbers of people right across the public sector in DB schemes and generous DC schemes who, for a most modest increase in their national insurance, got that improvement in the state second pension together with the benefits of auto-enrolment or their defined benefit pension system as well. Therefore the relative position of carers was disadvantaged. Yes, their absolute position over a certain period—or after a certain period, although that is not the case—has improved, but the relative relationship did not, because everybody had that benefit from the reform to the state second pension.
I do not want to dwell on that, but there is a community out there who, if I did not do them justice and push back, would say, “Jeannie, why did you just accept those arguments?” I take the Minister’s final remarks about working for the Government. There are groups out there in industry, employers, academics and gender groups who want to work this out with the Government. I hope that the Government can find a way fairly soon to bring together a working group, or whatever. There is a feeling, “How does one communicate to the Government the growing feeling on the gender pension gap?” I felt that I had to push back, because there was a slightly dismissive approach that there was no gender pension gap problem, and there is.
Earl Howe
I hope that the noble Baroness will not go away with that impression. We are aware that there is a gap to be bridged. The key point I would ask her to reflect on is that, despite the desire to go faster in this area, there is a risk in doing so. We have learned lessons from the phased approach that we have already adopted. It was the right approach. The gradual approach brought everybody on side. We gathered evidence in the process; we are still gathering that evidence, and the evidence-based approach is the other watchword to bear in mind.
Baroness Sherlock
I will follow up a couple of questions that I asked the Minister: one was about mini-jobs, and I do not think that he responded to the other—I am sorry if I missed it—on the issue of spousal consent and pension freedom sharing. In Grand Committee on Monday, we were having a conversation about this. The Minister pushed back quite hard. I suggested that she go back to the department to establish whether there was a problem, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott said:
“The suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is very helpful. I would be happy to do that before we come back to this on Wednesday”—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. GC245.]
The reason I suggested that is that I knew we were going to have a debate on women’s pensions and therefore we could have it informed by some information. There is not much point in our having assurances if they do not happen. Is there anything to be said on that?
Earl Howe
I understand from officials in the Ministry of Justice that there has been a relatively small number of cases where the pension scheme member has taken advantage of the pension freedoms to act in a way that frustrates the intention of an attachment order. However, I would like to establish what evidence there is of the scale of the wider problem, as outlined by my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, in our debate on Monday, before deciding on the appropriate government response. I can tell the noble Baroness that my officials will work with others across government to gather the available evidence.
Baroness Janke
I thank the Minister for his assurances and for the information he gave. I am sure that the Government want to pursue the evidence-based approach, but the actual situation is very hard for many women at this moment. I welcome his offer to work with the Government on this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, said, many groups will be interested in doing so; I hope that we can engage them in positive working on this issue.
A much larger proportion of those now in pensioner poverty are women because their caring responsibilities were never represented in the past. I feel that there has to be a recognition of the current situation while agreeing that we must move forward and take people with us on this.
On the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, it is not only a question of spousal consent to an attachment order. It is often not possible to make a pension settlement because it takes place before the process reaches that stage. Spousal consent is essential because, as others have said, once the money has gone, it is extremely difficult to recover it. The ABI has written a briefing on divorce and pensions; I recommend it to the Government. Pensions in divorce is another issue that is extremely important to women.
Again, I thank the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, I understand that Amendment 89 has already been debated even though it did not appear on the groupings.
Baroness Altmann
“Suitability of pension schemes for automatic enrolment
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision to require that, where an employer makes arrangements by which a jobholder to whom section 3 of the Pensions Act 2008 applies, or a worker to whom section 9 of that Act applies, becomes an active member of an automatic enrolment or other pension scheme, the employer and the trustees, managers and administrators of the scheme have ensured that it is suitable for low-paid jobholders or entitled workers such that they are treated fairly in connection with their contributions. (2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that employers, trustees, managers and administrators have assessed the scheme they use for auto-enrolment to ascertain that it treats low paid staff fairly and does not force them to pay additional contributions to replace tax relief they have lost.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, noble Lords will understand that I believe that this amendment is vital to the ongoing success of automatic enrolment.
I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for the work that she did with the original Pensions Commission, which set up automatic enrolment. It has been a success. My amendment seeks to build on auto-enrolment by introducing protections particularly for low earners—at least 70% of whom are women—and provides that the Secretary of State must make regulations that require the trustees, managers, administrators and employers of these workplace pension schemes to ensure that the scheme is suitable for low earners and treats them fairly.
I seek to introduce this into the Bill because, currently, more than 1 million women who are earning below the personal tax threshold, which is around £12,500 in any one job, are required to pay—unwittingly and unknowingly in probably all cases—25% more for their pension because their employer has chosen a particular pension scheme that is not suitable for them because it charges them so much extra.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, referred to addressing pensioner poverty and undersaving. Clearly, the fact that the lowest earners in the country have an extra 25% added to the cost of their pension, which has to come out of their pay, makes them more likely to have affordability issues and could, potentially, lead to them opting out of the pension because of the extra costs. These are, generally speaking, the people who most need help to build up a pension for later life and who are at greater risk of pensioner poverty. That is what the auto-enrolment system was meant to address, given that we have the lowest state pension in the developed world.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
My Lords, I signed this amendment and I do not think there is a great deal to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has said. I am sure we are all familiar with the phrase that two wrongs do not make a right. As has been explained, this is one of those instances in which two rights have ended up making a wrong, in that auto-enrolment and raising the tax thresholds were right but have resulted in more and more people falling into this trap. If we are to believe all the things we read in the newspapers about the Budget, it may be that more right things will be done, in terms of tax thresholds, that will then trap more people in this wrong of paying more than they should for their pension. These people would be better off if they were not in the scheme but in a private pension scheme because there would be mechanisms for them to get that tax relief.
The problem could be adjusted through the tax system because it knows who they are. There are various ways in which it could be addressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has put forward one in which it is up to employers to seek out the solution. If that is regarded as too onerous, something else must be done because this really is very bad, once again hitting the people who always seem to be at the rough end of every deal and are predominantly women. I am not quite sure how it is taken into account in universal credit—whether it asks, “Are you paying more for your pension than you should?”—but I would not mind betting that many of them will be the same people who suffer at every twist and turn. I therefore strongly support this amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. We should congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on the diligence with which she has persisted on this matter for quite a long while. As she hinted, she was responsible for convening an industry group that spent a lot of time digging into this to make sure its focus was right.
The reality is clear. There are two systems giving tax relief and no reason in principle why they should not both deliver the same result. One does not for low earners at the moment. Which of the two systems you are in depends on your employer’s choice. That simply cannot be right. As the noble Baroness said, there are ways of dealing with this. I understand that the Treasury has set its face against that to date. Of course, for the Treasury, the downside is that providing a bit more tax relief means having a little less revenue. However, we are talking about the lowest paid, who are being disadvantaged by this. It is about time that this was brought to a halt.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Altmann for her amendment. I am well aware that she is a passionate and long-standing campaigner on the issue of lower-paid workers automatically enrolled into a workplace pension who may not benefit as much as other lower-paid workers for their pension saving.
As my noble friend will know—I hope she will not mind my saying this en passant—pensions tax relief is a matter for the Treasury, with the differing treatment of people in net pay arrangements and relief at source pension schemes determined by the Finance Act 2004 which, strictly speaking, is outside the scope of the legislation before us. That does not prevent me giving her as full an answer as I can.
Automatic enrolment legislation defines which qualifying workers are to be put into workplace pensions by reference to their age, earnings level and their being working or ordinarily working in the UK. I appreciate that this is essentially a probing amendment and that the precise wording is of secondary importance, but its reference to the low paid is not a definition recognised in the Pensions Act 2008. It would make it very complex and burdensome for employers accurately to identify the group to be covered by the proposed regulation-making powers.
Automatic enrolment has always sought to balance its core aim of helping working people build up their retirement savings with an implementation approach that recognises the costs and administrative burdens that will inevitably fall on employers. We are mindful that those duties must be proportionate and restricted to the minimum necessary to achieve our policy objectives. That is why pension scheme choice under automatic enrolment is reserved to the employer, who is required to use a scheme that meets minimum quality standards set out in legislation. Tax relief is only one of the factors that an employer should be considering when choosing a scheme for its employees, alongside whether it will accept all its staff, how much it will cost for the employer to administer and whether it will work with the existing payroll systems.
The employer’s decision will be informed by detailed guidance provided by the Pensions Regulator via its automatic enrolment compliance website, including information about the tax implications of different types of scheme. We should remind ourselves that there is guidance on the Pensions Regulator’s website to help employers understand the impact of scheme choice on lower earners below the personal allowance. I am well aware of how much assistance my noble friend gave on this when she was Pensions Minister.
Consequently, the current legislative framework is not set up to allow government to impose broad, undefined requirements on pension scheme trustees, managers or administrators in the way proposed by the amendment. Employers have duties under automatic enrolment, and they select a pension provider from the marketplace, based on their legal obligations towards qualifying workers and the commercial needs of the organisation.
The suitability of an automatic enrolment scheme is determined primarily through statutory quality requirements. Many employers will choose a master trust scheme, which is subject to an additional regulatory framework. All automatic enrolment schemes are registered pension schemes and their members are further protected by the broader legislative framework for occupational and personal pension schemes.
Baroness Altmann
I thank my noble friend for his response. I welcomed, very much, the commitment in the manifesto to look at this issue. However, I hope he will forgive me if I suggest that this is not necessarily a matter just for the Treasury. Tax relief is, of course, a matter for the Treasury but the duties of schemes, trustees, IGCs and employers is a matter for the Pensions Regulator. Also, auto-enrolment falls under the Department for Work and Pensions. Might it therefore be possible—I humbly request this of my noble friend—to go back to the department to consider whether this issue of suitability could go broader than just tax relief? It could include all sorts of other areas: for example, an employer might choose a scheme that the majority of the workforce might not like to be in, but there is no mechanism for them not to be put into it.
If that is considered too difficult, I certainly take the point on low earners. This is a probing amendment and I would, for example, be happy to specify those earning below the personal tax threshold—that is really what we are talking about and it could be addressed. I understand and recognise that there is guidance for employers on the Pensions Regulator’s website but the requirements for master trust authorisation, or the requirements put on IGCs and trustees of these pension schemes, do not include taking any concern for the extra costs imposed on those earning below the personal tax threshold. One wonders how value for money could be confirmed by those running pension schemes if many people in those schemes pay 25% more than they would if they were in an alternative scheme. There is a requirement for a value-for-money assessment but it does not seem to take account of these low-earning women.
I would be delighted to help the Government fulfil their aim of addressing this issue. Notwithstanding that, I would be grateful if my noble friend might consider whether there should be some extra duty. If it is not just on employers—I take that point and I mentioned it in moving the amendment—at the very least the trustees, the IGCs and the regulator know what is going on, even if in most cases the small employer does not. I have seen the wording on the Pensions Regulator’s website; it is not really clear, if you are someone who does not know what this is all about, that actually it means that because of the scheme you have chosen, your low earners will pay 25% more than they otherwise would.
Whether or not we can address this in the Bill—I hope that maybe we can—I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I am also grateful to my noble friends the Ministers, and the department, for having taken the time to continue to discuss the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I heard the Minister’s reply, which seemed a recipe for no action—not this year or next. Given all the hard work that has gone into developing thoughts on this, that does not seem fair. If we are saying that the legislation—or the regulation—is not fit for purpose as it is, why do we not change it? Whatever happened to taking back control?
Earl Howe
I promise that nothing I said was intended as a recipe for no action. The problems that my noble friend articulated well relates to how we solve this problem, not whether we are committed to doing so. Unfortunately, it does not admit of a straightforward answer. If it did, we would have solved it long ago.
Baroness Altmann
“Multi-employer pensions scheme
The trustees of a multi-employer pension scheme may cancel a debt which became due from a departing employer before the coming into force of this section in relation to the scheme under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 if—(a) failure to pay the debt would not materially reduce the scheme’s assets relative to the estimated debt in relation to the scheme,(b) the majority of the debt relates to liabilities in respect of members working for employers no longer participating in the scheme,(c) the employer has not done an act or engaged in a course of conduct that detrimentally affected in a material way the likelihood of accrued scheme benefits being received (whether the benefits are to be received as benefits under the scheme or otherwise),(d) at the time of the cessation of the employer’s participation in the scheme, the scheme was estimated to have sufficient and appropriate assets to cover its technical provisions and the employer had no reason to believe there was a significant scheme deficit,(e) the employer has been operating as an unincorporated business and the owner would face personal bankruptcy, or the employer has been operating as a small business which would become insolvent, if required to pay the debt,(f) the debt is below a de minimis threshold in relation to the size of the overall scheme liabilities, as estimated by the trustees or managers on advice of the scheme actuary as if the whole scheme had been winding up at the time the debt was treated as becoming due, and(g) the employer has always taken all reasonable steps to fund the scheme as demanded by the trustees before the employer cessation event.”
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, perhaps I should apologise for taking the Committee’s time on issues that I feel have an opportunity to be resolved in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will understand that I am doing this because I want to see pensions work better, and I care passionately about a system which I believe works really well in general. but there are areas that are causing significant problems which we may be able to address.
The issue at hand in this amendment is directly relevant to the Bill. It is about multi-employer pension schemes, where the current legislation has unintended consequences and causes significant damage in ways that it was never designed to do. There may be a way in which we can try to address that. I am not claiming that the wording of this probing amendment will fit the bill, as it were. However, in the plumbing multi-employer pension scheme—the one I have most experience of, but by no means the only one; there are a number of charity schemes as well—the trustees seem to be trying to force good employers into personal insolvency and homelessness to pay into the scheme the cost of buying annuities for workers who never worked for them. This is in a scheme which has always been said to be fully funded, with enough money to pay all its pensions: in the December 2019 employer update it was reported to be funded to 108%. It had an 8% surplus at its last measure. The scheme will not buy the annuities that these people’s homes will be taken away to pay for, while the employers have paid every penny of the contribution ever requested by its trustees.
In this pensions Bill we are dealing, quite rightly, with new measures for the Pensions Regulator to deal with recalcitrant employers, who may have deliberately decided—or the regulator may believe have deliberately decided—not to put enough money into the pension scheme. We are introducing measures which I have tried to build upon in my amendment, which gives reasons why the regulator may not impose a contribution notice, for example, on such a recalcitrant employer. I am trying to look at the conditions we might able to introduce in multi-employer schemes, which go back some time—for example, the ones I have looked at go back to the 1970s—and used to have 4,000 employers. Many of them have been allowed to leave or have failed. Now there are around 400 left. These are responsible for all the people who worked for those thousands of other employers, as well as the very few who worked for them.
I wonder whether we can find ways that mimic the easements for recalcitrant employers to salvage the situation for these often unincorporated businesses, such as partnerships which have been in a family for decades or very small companies. If the owner or the individual retires, they crystallise the Section 75 debt. If they try to pass the business to their son, they trigger the Section 75 debt. If they incorporated from a partnership to a company, they triggered the Section 75 debt but nobody ever told them. The size of the debt they owe is immaterial to the survival of the scheme. I am trying to see whether we can use a materiality test, a solvency test or a reasonableness test to deal with this unintended consequence of Section 75 debt, which had a strong and right purpose: if an employer was to walk away from a pension scheme, it needed to make sure that it had put enough money in to meet its promises to all its staff.
I have tried to introduce conditions through this amendment which would permit trustees not to collect the Section 75 debt. They are: if failing
“to pay the debt would not materially reduce the scheme’s assets relative to the estimated debt”;
if
“the majority of the debt”
owed by the employer is for orphan assets—workers who never worked for that employer, so the main employer could not try to use this provision; if the employer has never tried to avoid the debt or to damage funding; if
“at the time of the cessation”—
the Section 75 crystallisation—the scheme was fully funded on technical provisions; if the employer is unincorporated or a small business, and we may need to add partnerships, and faces personal bankruptcy or insolvency; and if the employer has always paid all the contributions asked for, then the trustees would explicitly be permitted not to collect the debt.
The total debt for the employers which I have seen suffering particularly from this is £7.2 million. That may sound a lot of money, but this scheme is worth well over £2 billion, so whether it collects that extra few million pounds will not make a difference to its solvency and survival in the long term. We seem to have lost sight of reasonableness. I hope we might define the circumstances tightly so that other employers cannot use this provision as a precedent. I completely understand concerns that we do not want it to be used as a precedent. The size of the debt is immaterial, relative to the solvency of the scheme.
I have deliberately worded Amendment 94 so that it follows new Section 58B(2) on page 91 of the Bill. Under that provision, the Section 75 debt or contribution notice will not have to be imposed. It says:
“A person commits an offence only if (a) the person does an act or engages in a course of conduct that detrimentally affects in a material way the likelihood of accrued scheme benefits being received”.
Clearly, in the case I described, in multi-employer schemes that test would not be met for imposition of the debt. The new section continues:
“(b) the person knew or ought to have known that the act or course of conduct would have that effect”.
These employers have paid everything that they were ever asked for and were always told that the scheme was fully funded, so they would never have known that there was a problem. The trustees of the scheme did not even try to collect Section 75 debt between 2005 and the past couple of years. The new section then says:
“(c) the person did not have a reasonable excuse for doing the act or engaging in the course of conduct”.
Again, if someone is paying everything that is due, the size of the debt is not material to the solvency of the scheme and the scheme is not buying annuities anyway, can we not inject some reasonableness? There are already easements but they do not meet these circumstances.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment because the circumstances that have been outlined are distressing and there seems to be no easy way for the affected people to address them. If they were bigger and more powerful, it is certain that they would not be pursued—not least because the instructions for pursuit, if I can call them that, are that you have to be able to recover more than it costs you to do so. It would not take a great deal of litigation for that to be backed off from.
It is another example of how unfair it is when people who have run a business as a partnership, unincorporated, are at a disadvantage compared with those who take advantage of limited liability. You are not doing anything bad by putting yourself and your livelihood on the line. It may be that it has not been done in the way that it should have been in small practices, such as plumbing companies, but when you find yourself in this kind of situation—which you would not be in if you had been incorporated—it has always been difficult to see fairness in the law.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has produced a tightly composed amendment. I have studied it and it seems to fit the bill. Obviously, if someone can improve on it that would be fine. Otherwise, I do not see how there will be fairness for those who do not have equality of arms with the larger companies, which have sometimes been allowed to leave schemes without necessarily paying up as much as they should. In such cases, the burden falls on smaller firms. The trustees should have taken that into account long ago. If they have not, why should the burden fall on those who cannot find the means to take the matter to court? Basically, that is what this is about. A large employer in the scheme would fight the case and perhaps there would be claims for negligent behaviour for some of what has gone on. This solution avoids quite a lot of unpleasantness and untidiness that might otherwise be the only way. If there is any way that the Government can pursue this amendment, it would be a very good thing.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I thank my noble friend Lady Altmann for tabling this amendment and congratulate her on her tenacity in continuing her campaign to resolve this situation. If we were giving awards for tenacity, she would win, I am sure.
The Government understand the difficulties facing employers in these situations, especially where, in the past, they have taken all reasonable steps to fund the scheme as requested by the trustees. The amendment seeks to amend Section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 to allow trustees further discretion to cancel a departing employer’s debt in certain circumstances. It raises a number of issues that I will address.
The effect of this amendment would be that every time it is applied, the employer covenant would be weakened, increasing the risk of thousands of members not getting their benefits in full. It is hard to envisage a scenario where trustees could agree to such an arrangement and still be compliant with their fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of scheme members. In particular, the proposals for a new de minimis threshold raise significant issues. Even if the threshold is set at a very low level, it could enable a large number of small employers to depart schemes without payment. The aggregate impact of this could be significant. Passing this level of debt on to employers who remain could make them insolvent.
It is worth noting that some flexibility already exists for trustees to collect reduced employer debts as long as the scheme is funded above a Pension Protection Fund level basis. It is set at this level to ensure that schemes do not place an additional burden on the Pension Protection Fund and, ultimately, the levy payers.
The amendment also proposes that debts could be compromised if the majority of the debt relates to orphan members whose employers no longer remain in the scheme. This would be very difficult for the scheme trustees, who have a duty to ensure that orphaned members’ rights are protected and that their scheme is properly funded. Removing orphan debts from the employer debt calculation would ultimately worsen the scheme’s funding position, putting thousands of members’ pensions at risk.
Further, this amendment would impose different statutory requirements on unincorporated and small employers, creating a number of challenges. For example, if all or the majority of the scheme’s employers were either unincorporated or small, it could mean that none, or very few, employer debts would ever be collected; in the long term, that could create a severe underfunding situation, with all the risks that entails.
The Government’s Green Paper and subsequent White Paper, which was published in March 2018, on defined benefit pension schemes looked very closely at this issue and considered carefully what could be done to relieve the pressure that some employers face from their obligation to pay an employer debt. The White Paper concluded that the existing arrangements in legislation, along with the deferred debt arrangement introduced in April 2018, provide enough flexibility for employers to manage their employer debts. Further, the current full buyout calculation method is the most secure and effective way of protecting members and remaining employers in a multi-employer scheme.
While the Government recognise the difficulty facing companies in managing this debt, they cannot, at this time, offer any easements beyond those already provided for in legislation. However, recognising the many representations that the Government have received supporting a change that would assist employers in this difficult position, we will keep this under review and continue the dialogue.
My noble friend Lady Altmann raised the issue of retired employers triggering a debt and being unable to pass it on. Flexibility in the rules enables retired employers to pass their scheme on to another employer without triggering an employer debt. The scheme has a streamlined, flexible apportionment arrangement, which could help employers in this situation.
My noble friend also made the point that some people find themselves in extreme difficulties, with the potential to lose their home. The employer debt regime is designed to protect employers who remain in a multi-employer scheme. It would be unfair to burden remaining employers with additional unplanned costs to cover the shortfall that would be created by relaxing requirements for one group of employers. The flexible apportionment arrangement currently available in legislation can be used to help unincorporated employers who wish to incorporate.
My noble friend Lady Altmann also asked whether the scheme is fully funded. My noble friend the Minister mentioned that the scheme is fully funded on a technical provision basis. However, I understand that the scheme is underfunded on both a budget basis and a PPF basis. The next scheme valuation is due in April 2020, which will give us a clearer picture of the scheme’s funding position.
I thank my noble friend and other noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on this amendment. I know how important it is to my noble friend, but, on the basis of my response, I respectfully ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Altmann
I thank my noble friend for her response, but I confess to being extremely disappointed with the robust refusal to address the issue. The current easements are not working, otherwise I would not be trying to press this amendment. The deferred debt arrangement does not remove the debt; it just pushes it into the future, so the person will still be made destitute at some point. Trustees are refusing a flexible apportionment arrangement, so clearly that is not an option.
We seem to have lost sight of the materiality issue and of what we are trying to do with the bigger employers. There are already some ways in which trustees can not collect Section 75 debt. I am just trying to extend those very slightly; it will not apply to the majority of employers in the scheme and it will not materially impact on the solvency and survival of the scheme.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I urge my noble friend to go back to the department to see whether there are any ways in which we might be able to inject some further easement for multi-employer, non-associated schemes, which were never designed to do this to good employers.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
“11A_(1) The Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/3213 (N.I. 22)) is amended as follows.(2) After Article 41 insert—“41A Climate change risk(1) Regulations may impose requirements on the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme of a prescribed description with a view to securing that there is effective governance of the scheme with respect to the effects of climate change. (2) The effects of climate change in relation to which provision may be made under paragraph (1) include, in particular— (a) risks arising from steps taken because of climate change (whether by governments or otherwise), and(b) opportunities relating to climate change.(3) The requirements which may be imposed by the regulations include, in particular, requirements about—(a) reviewing the exposure of the scheme to risks of a prescribed description;(b) assessing the assets of the scheme in a prescribed manner;(c) determining, reviewing and (if necessary) revising a strategy for managing the scheme’s exposure to risks of a prescribed description;(d) determining, reviewing and (if necessary) revising targets relating to the scheme’s exposure to risks of a prescribed description;(e) measuring performance against such targets;(f) preparing documents containing information of a prescribed description.(4) Regulations under paragraph (3)(b) may, in particular, require assets to be assessed by reference to their exposure to risks of a prescribed description and may, for the purposes of such an assessment, require the contribution of such assets to climate change to be determined.(5) In complying with requirements imposed by the regulations, a trustee or manager must have regard to guidance prepared from time to time by the Department.41B Climate change risk: publication of information(1) Regulations may require the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme of a prescribed description to publish information of a prescribed description relating to the effects of climate change on the scheme.(2) Regulations under paragraph (1) may, among other things—(a) require the trustees or managers to publish a document of a prescribed description;(b) require information or a document to be made available free of charge;(c) require information or a document to be provided in a form that is or by means that are prescribed or of a prescribed description.(3) In complying with requirements imposed by the regulations, a trustee or manager must have regard to guidance prepared from time to time by the Department.41C Articles 41A and 41B: compliance(1) Regulations may make provision with a view to ensuring compliance with a provision of regulations under Article 41A or 41B.(2) The regulations may in particular—(a) provide for the Authority to issue a notice (a “compliance notice”) to a person with a view to ensuring the person’s compliance with a provision of regulations under Article 41A or 41B;(b) provide for the Authority to issue a notice (a “third party compliance notice”) to a person with a view to ensuring another person’s compliance with a provision of regulations under Article 41A or 41B;(c) provide for the Authority to issue a notice (a “penalty notice”) imposing a penalty on a person where the Authority are of the opinion that the person—(i) has failed to comply with a compliance notice or third party compliance notice, or (ii) has contravened a provision of regulations under Article 41A or 41B; (d) provide for the making of a reference to the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal in respect of the issue of a penalty notice or the amount of a penalty;(e) confer other functions on the Authority.(3) The regulations may make provision for determining the amount, or the maximum amount, of a penalty in respect of a failure or contravention.(4) But the amount of a penalty imposed under the regulations in respect of a failure or contravention must not exceed—(a) £5,000, in the case of an individual, and(b) £50,000, in any other case.(5) In this Article “First-tier Tribunal” and “Upper Tribunal” mean those tribunals established under section 3 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.”(3) In Article 113 (breach of regulations), in paragraph (3)(b), after “10” insert “or under provision contained in regulations made by virtue of Article 41C”.(4) In Article 167 (Assembly, etc. control of orders and regulations), after paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) Paragraph (2) also applies in relation to the first regulations made by virtue of Article 41A or 41C (whether made alone or with other regulations).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for Northern Ireland that is equivalent to the provision made by the Minister’s amendment to insert a new Clause after Clause 123.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for Northern Ireland that is equivalent to the provision made by the Minister’s amendment at page 118, line 11.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Impact assessment
Within six months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must lay an impact assessment before each House of Parliament setting out the expected costs of its provisions for businesses, and governmental and non-profit organisations.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Howe took great trouble in Grand Committee on 2 March—at column GC237 in Hansard—to respond to my earlier amendment on impact assessment. He made an admirable commitment to transparency, both on costs and benefits, on the range of measures in the Bill. Time is passing and I see no need to delay the Committee further. If it is in order, I will not move the amendment.
“Regulations
Regulations under this Act may not—(a) create a new criminal offence,(b) create a regulator,(c) create multi-employer collective money purchase schemes,(d) significantly restrict the powers of trustees, or(e) amend primary legislation.”
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
My Lords, in Committee there has been broad resistance by the Government to positive amendments suggesting what could be put in the Bill to give reassurance about many of the issues raised. The Government claim that that needs to be the case to preserve flexibility, but that does not get over the fact that there are very broad delegated powers in the Bill, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Sharkey on the first day in Committee and by the Delegated Powers Committee. There is no certainty about how far those broad powers will be used. They are not called Henry VIII clauses for nothing, although delegated powers nowadays put Henry VIII in the shade. I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, elaborated on that last year.
This amendment goes the other way. Instead of making suggestions to clarify what needs to be done, it clarifies five things that the Government may not do under the delegated powers. It is, of course, a probing amendment. I could have made a longer or different list, and a couple of matters are in it specifically to enable further discussion. However, despite the probing nature of the amendment, its form is not novel. It has appeared in other legislation, and I believe it appears several times in the withdrawal Act. It is a known way of addressing issues of concern in skeleton legislation. I may have helped it into a few pieces of legislation, but I consider that such a clause should always exist.
I shall take each of my points in turn. Proposed paragraph (a) states:
“Regulations under this Act may not … create a new criminal offence”.
That provision has been used before to constrain broad powers in legislation. A new criminal offence should always come to Parliament in such a way that it can be amended or rejected. I believe there are examples of finding a new criminal offence within a set of regulations with no amendment possibilities; indeed, I have been on one of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committees, and there were examples. That should not happen. It would be a disproportionate use of delegated power—that has been suggested when I have run such a proposed clause—yet it has been used and therefore it is reasonable to suggest that it should not be. In the instance of pensions, and despite the fact that I have argued on this Bill that the criminal offences are not drawn wide enough, so I am certainly not a dud with regard to them, I do not believe that it would be reasonable to make new ones by regulation. The relevant clauses in the Bill are easily wide enough to do that.
Proposed paragraph (b) is about not creating a regulator. There appears to be a strong danger of that here because the wording that enables powers to be conferred on any person could enable the creation of a regulator. I think the wording is “discretion”, but my noble friend Lord Sharkey inquired as to what it meant and the reply came back that it could be any powers to any body, therefore it would enable the creation of a regulator. There is an example of that in Clause 51. If the person who is designated is already a regulator which has been set up under primary legislation, it is not a problem to expand its powers appropriately, but if a new regulator is created, that would be wrong. So why are there clauses in the Bill that are wide enough and of a description that would enable that? My wording here does not capture all the wrongs that could happen under any power to any person provisions, but at least it draws a line.
Proposed new paragraph (c) prohibits the creation of a multi-employer collective money purchase scheme through regulations. I refer back to issues that have already been discussed with regard to problems in the plumber pension scheme. There are other examples of difficulties caused by withdrawals from collective DB schemes. It can come around in particular when large and small employers are put together. Our discussions with regard to collective money purchase schemes have already made it clear that there are issues on which we are still uncomfortable in the context of the employee risk, even in a single CDC scheme. The Post Office scheme is not an everyday case; they will start out with some advantages. There will be even more unknowns in the multi-employer scheme. For example, the pool for risk-sharing is larger, which might seem attractive, but the risk of a larger group leaving is then an awfully large matter for the remaining pensioners to take on board.
Proposed new paragraph (d) is not to
“significantly restrict the powers of trustees”.
I do not mean to override the powers the regulator has to sanction trustees for improper behaviour. I put this point in because there has already been discussion as to whether some of this Bill’s provisions are encroaching on the day-to-day decision-making of trustees—for example, with regard to investment policies. There are noble Lords here who have far more experience of pension trustees than I do, and I particularly value thoughts on the usefulness of this provision. I want to be clear: I am not suggesting that this is anything to do with preventing regulators having the right balance of powers to do things. It is where they would intervene on day-to-day matters.
Proposed new paragraph (e) prevents amendment of primary legislation. I am aware that this is in conflict with the powers the Government have given themselves in Clause 47(5). It is a matter of principle. Pensions are a highly sensitive policy area, and it would be wrong if a Government could selectively change or revoke significant consumer protection provisions without scrutiny at the level of primary legislation. The clause says:
“Regulations under this section may among other things … amend, repeal or revoke a provision of this Part or any other enactment.”
A short while ago, when we were discussing one of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I think I heard that the Minister did not think there was the power to do certain things. Actually, the Government jolly well have it here, because they can “amend, repeal or revoke” anything they like—any enactment—so I think that was not a valid excuse, if I can put it that way.
Of course, the real problem here is that parliamentary procedures are deficient in that departments have to enter into a bidding process to get Bills and, because of time constraints, they do not come around superabundantly. The only other option, regulations, is not really democratic on the level on which they have become used. It is possible for the Government to do something about that, but it is my view that, until it is done, restraints must be placed on powers in the manner I propose—all the more so when there is lack of policy guidance.
I know we have had exchanges before on whether there is adequate policy guidance. Some of us think there is not, and the noble Earl has said it is all about implementation and the policy is there. I cited Clause 47(5), and Clause 51(3) says:
“Regulations under this Part may … confer a discretion on a person”.
When that was discussed—when the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, raised the clause stand part debate on Clause 51—my immediate scribble was “may not create a regulator”, which was directly in response to what could be covered under “discretion”. That, therefore, is the reasoning. I could give more reasons and find many more examples of where discretion is conferred: a failure to really tie it down to the policies. Given that where helpful suggestions have been put forward that would perhaps have given more reassurance on the true nature and scope have been resisted, there is no alternative but to outline what may not be done. I beg to move.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I add my support to many aspects of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. She is trying to do something very helpful for the Committee and the Bill. We have all expressed concerns about the wide-ranging powers in this Bill, which seem to go a lot further than normal for such Bills. I recognise that pensions Bills tend to have wide powers added to them, but it makes sense to identify areas where we would not wish the legislation to allow a Minister to do things that would normally come back to Parliament for our scrutiny or further legislation.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I, too, share the aspiration of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to constrain somewhat the use of the extensive powers that the Government are blessing themselves through this Bill. I will not, however, reopen that debate in any great detail, although there is a temptation to say “We have another whole hour of Committee, we can debate this at great length”. The danger of a list is that some noble Lords will have concerns about particular aspects, such as constraining trustee power, while some will be in favour of multi-employer collective money purchase schemes. Most of us, however, would have reservations about the ability to amend primary legislation.
Although it may not feel as though Bills come along in super abundance, in the field of pensions it feels like they come along all the time like the number 19 bus, but I take the point. In fact, if we are going to have a list I would like to add to it: I would start with not allowing dashboards to do transactions without covering that in primary legislation. I have a long list in my notes which I will develop at length should we return to this. What might be helpful is if the Minister, in replying, would tell Committee whether the Government intend to do any of these things.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
My Lords, the question of delegated powers has already been extensively discussed in relation to the relevant clauses. My noble friend Lord Howe has already eloquently covered the Government’s position on these powers. As I said before to this Committee, the use of secondary legislation to set out more detailed technical matters, or to amend primary legislation for specified purposes, is consistent with the general approach in pensions legislation.
As with other pensions legislation, the provisions in the Bill embody the fundamental policy, while provisions of a more technical nature, or which are by their nature liable to change, are delegated to secondary legislation. This staged approach has two benefits. First, it enables flexibility to ensure that the legal framework remains appropriately tailored to developments in the pensions industry. Secondly, it enables government to provide legal certainty more quickly. This is important for the pensions industry and for member protection. It is a common feature of pensions legislation, which is by its nature very technical and can be subject to change.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
I thank the Minister for her responses. Referring to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, as to which of these the Government may be doing, I think the answer has come back: all of them. I will go through them.
With proposed new paragraph (a), to
“create a new criminal offence”,
I was not focusing on fine-tuning Clause 107. We are used to how fine-tuning of an existing offence is done. If you look at some other areas, such as sanctions and anti-money laundering, you will see that it is a new criminal offence every time a new sanction is created, but the framework for what has to be done to create such a sanction is laid out in the Bill. If the right kind of policy direction is given in the Bill, you can be allowed to do more. I beg to differ with the assumption that there are no powers here, when the Government can amend any enactment. It puts no restriction on what they may do, so I do not think there is any legal certainty around not creating something that is a completely new idea of a criminal offence.
I am pleased to hear that there is no power here to enable the creation of a regulator. I would be interested to look again at the Hansard from the first day of Committee, because under the requirement to
“confer a discretion on a person”,
the person can be a body corporate and the discretion was specifically referenced as “powers”, if I remember rightly. I would be happy to accept a Pepper v Hart statement that there is to be no creation of regulators, if the Minister felt able to make one.
It has been made clear that there is the intent to create multi-employer collective money purchase schemes. This worries me greatly: having looked at it further, I am now less than certain about the general benefits and there is a risk to pensioners and employees. So many of the points put forward over the four days of Committee debates show that we have not got sufficient guidance as to what that shape will be. It worries me quite a lot that although we cannot yet work out how to do it fully for one, we are going with the more risky multi-employer system.
The requirement to
“significantly restrict the powers of trustees”
is, I suppose, a trick point. If anything does not deserve to be in the list, it is that, but I have drawn out a debate around the point, as I hoped to. Perhaps we have to be able to do that, but maybe there is some other way to make sure that it is framed with care.
My amendment then comes back to the amending of primary legislation. This is a wide power and I know that it can be used usefully, but such wide powers are never based on a single regulation. An individual regulation that could amend or revoke primary legislation would mean that Parliament could then reject it without being accused of always throwing the baby out with the bath water and losing all the other good things in the regulations. That might be a more reasonable way to approach things, but we know that that is not how it happens: we find ourselves doing something that we do not like because it is a small element of a much bigger thing. It is always done when the Government can make the case that it is urgent and that it will be a total disaster if it is booted out.
Baroness Sherlock
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way, especially as I am about to abuse her generosity by asking a more general question. It is directed across the table, and is something that I forgot to ask in my own contribution.
The noble Baroness asked for assurance on various points. At various times during the Committee, the Minister has kindly agreed to write to noble Lords. Can the Minister confirm that those letters will come before Report?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I can absolutely ensure that those letters will be with all Committee members before Report. We have debated these issues and I have listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords. We believe that all the powers are suitable and appropriate.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
I am not convinced, but we will await those letters—that was a very useful intervention. This is a matter that, one way or another, we may have to return to in some guise on Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords
NHS: Doctor Retention
Lord Naseby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve doctor retention in the National Health Service upon qualification.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so declare the interest that my wife is a retired full-time senior partner in general practice.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, this Government are committed to growing the workforce by 6,000 more doctors in general practice as part of their manifesto commitment. Doctor retention is a huge part of this commitment, which is why we are making changes to support general practitioners, including the GP retention scheme, a two-year primary care fellowship programme, the new partnership programme and the locum support scheme.
Lord Naseby
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but are there not two particular issues? The first is medical school intake. According to the latest figures, for 2018-19, nearly 9,000 more female medical students were taken on than male ones. As the House will be aware, 75% of the female intake work only part-time. Secondly, is there not also the question of the return to service agreements? This is something that we in this country use for medical Army, Navy and Air Force personnel. Is it not time to look at what Singapore, Canada and Australia have done? If it works in those areas, should we not look at it for the NHS?
Lord Bethell
My noble friend makes a good and fair point on return to service agreements. Service time for doctors was tested in 2017; the results were mixed and had a negative impact on the number of applications. However, on his point on female attendance for education, I do not recognise his numbers and I completely reject the idea that there might be too many women working in the NHS.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I regret to say that one of the key issues is not being addressed by the Government. Increasingly, inevitably, medicine is becoming a very academic subject; academics at the highest level are now going into medicine. There is a major problem with those academics being attracted to research in the NHS. So many doctors are now looking for alternatives because they cannot do research within the NHS. That is a loss to the NHS and, I am afraid, a loss to medicine. We must do something about research in parallel with clinical treatment.
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord makes a very important point on the importance of medical research to the NHS’s achievements. For this Government, though, the focus of recruitment is on primary and front-line care. Our investment in research remains undiminished, but the new retention commitment is very much about delivering value and clinical delivery for patients.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his support for women in medicine—being one, I should declare that interest. Will he look actively, with NHS trusts and the GMC, at trying to dissuade people from retiring early and making it easier for them to come back part-time without having to jump through multiple hoops, so that we do not lose many years of wisdom from the NHS for those who no longer want to work full-time in their main specialty but have a great deal to contribute in teaching, research and clinical practice?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness makes a very important point. It is clear that the lifestyles of clinical professionals in the NHS are changing. Many choose to take time off after their studies before joining practice and many seek to return after taking time out from professional front-line work. It is 100% the responsibility of—and in the interests of—the NHS to make that journey as quick and easy as possible.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, last year the Health Foundation reported that there had been no progress towards the Government’s target of 5,000 extra GPs by this year, mainly because of issues of pay, lack of investment in learning and development, and the stress of the job. Can the Minister update us on whether that target will be met this year?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness’s figures are not exactly the same as the ones I have. Last year, 3,250 students were studying to be doctors; this year there are 3,500, and next year there should be 4,000. Those are the numbers provided to me. If there is any difference between the two, I would be glad to discuss them with her elsewhere.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the well-being of doctors is a critical factor in this? He will recall that Professor Michael West and Dame Denise Coia produced a report commissioned by the General Medical Council at the end of last year. Will the Government and the NHS work together with the GMC to try to implement their recommendations?
Lord Bethell
The culture of the NHS and the well-being of those who work in it are of paramount importance. Getting that right is the focus of the NHS people plan. Working with the GMC on all these arrangements is a priority for the Government and I would be glad to follow up my noble friend’s suggestion.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for organising the meeting that we have all just come from; everybody there very much appreciated it. I am sure he agrees that seeing so many doctors leave the NHS in the early stages of their careers is very worrying. Indeed, it will worsen the recruitment crisis that we are seeing. What steps are the Government taking to understand the driving forces of and the motivating factors for the exodus from the UK’s medical training programmes? Have the Government committed to collecting that information from doctors who have left? Understanding that must support strategies for getting them back in again.
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness makes an important and fair point. Understanding why people depart is very important. Departure rates are too high for us to hit our objectives and raising retention rates is important. However, I emphasise that the leaver rate has not increased as she implies. In 2014 the rate was 14% and in 2018 it was 15%. That is not a huge increase but it is too high and we are finding ways to address it.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, in his initial response to the Question, the Minister referred to initiatives to increase the number of GPs. Does he have an estimate of how many GPs will be created through these initiatives, and by which year does he anticipate that the additional 6,000 might be achieved?
Lord Bethell
The initiatives that I described—the two-year primary care fellowship programme, the new-to-partnership payment and the locum support—are retention rather than recruitment initiatives, but an important part of our recruitment proposition is that those seeking a career in medicine think of it as a rewarding and fulfilling long-term career. As for the numbers we are seeking, we are already hitting the targets for graduate positions, and we have been encouraged by the response.
Agriculture: Genome-edited Crops
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Ridley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to regulate genome-edited crops after December 2020.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and in doing so declare my farming interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. The UK Government will take a science-based approach to reconsidering the position that all genome-edited organisms must be regulated as genetically modified organisms—GMOs. Our view is that genome-edited organisms should not be subject to GM regulation if the DNA changes could have occurred naturally or through traditional breeding methods. However, we have strict controls to safeguard health and the environment. Products must pass a robust case-by-case safety assessment, taking full account of scientific evidence.
Viscount Ridley
My Lords, there is not even a theoretical possibility that a genome-edited plant is less safe than a conventionally bred variety with the same trait. Environmental and nutritional benefits are accruing to consumers and producers all around the world from this technology, reducing dependence on chemicals —a race to the top, not the bottom. Given also the strength of British laboratories in this area, but their inability to develop these products because of strict regulation, does the Minister agree that it is vital to send a signal now to the private sector, perhaps by issuing draft regulations, that the UK is prepared to see rapid and timely approval of crops for commercialisation in this area, in sharp contrast to the impossible regime imposed by the European Union and as promised by the Prime Minister in Downing Street?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, we did not agree with the 2018 European Court of Justice ruling that all GE crops must be regulated as GMOs. There is an advantage in terms of seeking to improve the environment and productivity, and helping the agricultural sector, by exploring further how to better regulate genome-edited organisms. There is a lot of opportunity here. As I emphasised in my Answer, safety and the environment are of primary concern, but there is great scope here.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I do not have any farming interests, but I declare my interest in Rothamsted agricultural research, which is in the register.
There is no doubt that genome editing can make an important contribution to reducing pest-resistant and drought-resistant crops, but does the Minister agree that consumers will be properly reassured by the science only if it is published openly and shared for the common good so that everybody can see the background to that science?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I absolutely agree with what the noble Baroness has said. That is precisely what we need to do when considering any changes. The most important thing is consumer confidence. We are absolutely clear that there is merit in certain genome-editing activity. The noble Baroness mentioned the Rothamsted Research institute. There is also the Earlham Institute, the James Hutton Institute, the Sainsbury Laboratory and the John Innes Centre. All of our great laboratories are very positive about this research, and we do think that we should reconsider the current regulations.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I commend the Minister on the Government’s focus on agroecology as the way forward for agriculture and on the inclusion of soil health in the Agriculture Bill. Does the Minister acknowledge that the 21st-century approach of working with nature, with a whole-farm approach, is the direct opposite of the simplistic 20th-century GM editing approach? Should not our research efforts be focused on agroecology and working with nature?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Obviously, much of what we want to do is to work with the rhythm of nature. The point I was seeking to make earlier about gene editing is that, in particular where it merely escalates a natural process, there is an advantage to it. In terms of enhancement of the environment, we want to get disease-resistant crops and to improve animal welfare. A lot of the research is in order to assist things that the noble Baroness would support.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, how will the Government regulate and monitor cross-contamination of so-edited crops, which will not be grown universally in the agriculture industry, to make sure they do not affect biodiversity and overrun existing species?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
This is why we rely on the best science and have a science-based approach to how these matters are regulated. Clearly, confidence that this is about enhancing and helping the environment is the pitch by which we think that certain gene-editing activity and research could be extremely beneficial. It is eminently compatible with helping agriculture and the environment.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I also declare an interest in Rothamsted, which I represented in Parliament for 34 years. Would it not be a wonderful thing if, instead of farmers having to treat potato crops with pesticides up to 15 times a year, we were able to develop disease-resistant crops? Should not all those who care for the environment be in favour of this, rather than taking a Luddite approach?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, we have somehow got to help feed the world, and that is why I think research work into disease resistance in wheat, rice and cucumber, improving the starch content and quality of potatoes, increasing grain weight and improving protein content in wheat are areas in which a contribution can be made by responsible scientific endeavour.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, a recent report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics said,
“Genome editing to improve farmed animal welfare. What’s not to like?”
Does the Minister have a comment on that?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, scientists have produced, for instance, pigs that can resist one of the world’s most costly animal diseases—porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus—by changing their genetic code by genome editing. This disease clearly affects animal welfare and costs the pig industry £1.75 billion a year in Europe and the United States.
Historic Sexual Offences: Investigations
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the management of investigations into historic sexual offences.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, allegations of sexual offences are serious matters and must be treated as such, regardless of when they are alleged to have occurred. Increasing numbers of people now have the confidence to come forward and report what happened to them. It is right that the police are investigating these allegations and encouraging that they are securing convictions and providing victims and survivors with the justice that they deserve.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, as the Carl Beech affair now draws to a close, is not the real scandal in its management the fact that decent, honourable people, who have and had given a lifetime of public service to their country, have had their reputations destroyed by the headline-grabbing accusations of ambitious self-publicists and irresponsible policemen, who believed and promoted the lies of a fantasist, and that the damage that these purveyors of untruth have done can never be mitigated? Surely the perpetrators of this huge injustice bear responsibility for what has subsequently happened and it rests on their conscience, and history will never forgive them.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with much of what the noble Lord says. Once someone is falsely accused, that can never be undone and it can blight their entire life from that moment forward. Of course, some of the people whom I am sure the noble Lord is referring to are dead and cannot defend themselves. There is some remedy in law—perverting the course of justice or perjury in court—but he is absolutely right that those allegations can never be reversed and can destroy lives for ever.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Did my noble friend read the moving words of Diana Brittan, the widow of our former colleague Leon Brittan, and does she not agree that one who has abused his place in one House of Parliament should not be admitted to another?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I read the words of Diana Brittan. I hope that the whole House will take comfort from the fact that, when the House of Lords Appointments Commission decides whether people will come into your Lordships’ House, it should consider whether that person will bring the House into disrepute.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that complainants should always initially be cared for as genuine survivors of sexual offences but investigations should always be an objective search for the truth, and that there is no contradiction in such an approach?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think that the noble Lord knows that I agree with him.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
My Lords, in view of the life-changing and career-ruining result of some of these accusations, is it not time that people were not named until charged? I wonder what the Government’s attitude is to that. It would be a great remedy in future to protect public figures from ruination by glib accusations.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend will know that the guidance on this states that the police will not name those arrested or suspected of a crime save in exceptional circumstances where there is a legitimate policing purpose to do so, such as a threat to life, the prevention or detection of crime, or when police have made a public warning about a wanted individual. However, my noble friend will also appreciate that, in the case of Jimmy Savile, for example, had people not come forward, those victims’ voices would never have been heard.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness consider that police forces have any insight into the impact of their behaviour? I have in mind particularly Wiltshire Police in the case of Ted Heath. So far, one has faced a stone wall and hardly received a decent apology for the way in which they pursued a ridiculous case.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, in this House we have talked about several cases such as the one that the noble Lord has referred to. It is right that lessons are learned from these things and that the IOPC steps in, and it is also right that these matters can be pursued through the courts.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury
My Lords, can the Minister explain how we will learn from the sorts of examples that we have had—for instance, the case of Sir Edward Heath in Salisbury—unless there is an independent review? In the past, we have been told that the Home Office cannot do that and that it is the responsibility of the police and crime commissioner. The police and crime commissioner for Wiltshire says that the police force there was acting as a lead authority on behalf of others. We need to accept that more than 40 allegations had to be investigated. How will we learn unless there is a review, and what can the Home Office do that will help to restore the reputation of both Sir Edward and, I have to say, Wiltshire Police?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I certainly take on board that last point about restoring the reputation of Wiltshire Police. I guess that it is for that force to ensure that the cultures change over time. Three successive Home Secretaries have now said that they will not instigate an inquiry and that it is a matter for the police. The IOPC has already had an inquiry into Operation Midland. HMICFRS is now carrying out a lessons-learned review into Operation Midland, and that report is due in the next few weeks.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has just said that there have been three Home Secretaries who have not made an investigation into Operation Conifer, but, as the right reverend Prelate said, we are not going to move forward here. Why will a Home Secretary not order an investigation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, for the simple reason that the police are operationally independent of the Government; it is a matter for them. There are funds available should they wish to launch inquiries, but it has been the clear view of three successive Home Secretaries that an inquiry is not appropriate.
Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy: Integrated Review
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the timescale for the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy; who will lead that review; and whether the members of the Chiefs of Staff Committee will be part of the team delivering the review.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, the integrated review will align with the comprehensive spending review reporting later this year. Implementation of its recommendations is expected to be a multi-year project. Further announcements and timings will be made in due course. The review will be led by the Prime Minister. It will involve numerous stakeholders, including the Chief of the Defence Staff and service chiefs.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. I am amazed that this highly complex review, which ought to be called the Johnson review, is going to have to provide answers about money, effectively, for this summer. It is also sad that its aim is not something as straightforward as ensuring the defence and security of our nation and people, rather three pages of waffle.
My Question relates to spad involvement. When I was a Minister for three years, I am afraid I came to the conclusion that most spads—not all—were a complete waste of rations. Very recently, a spad has actually said that this country does not need an agriculture and fisheries sector, which, in strategic terms, is totally bonkers. Can the Minister reassure me that this study will be done by people who actually understand geopolitical and geostrategic issues, rather than by weird—I use the word advisedly, as it has been used by other people—spads?
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, let me try to tease out a few questions from the rhetoric. First, we have to be realistic: circumstances for the United Kingdom have changed dramatically, not least because we have left the EU, but particularly since the last strategic defence and security review in 2015. What we are contending with globally is unrecognisable from what we knew then. If this review was called the Johnson review, it would be a very appropriate title because it is an absolutely essential response to a geopolitical situation that is fluid globally. It is an essential response to the need to knit together government policy for defence, for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and, of course, for DfID. That is a very far-reaching prospect.
I do not share the noble Lord’s pessimism about the timescale for this review. He will be aware that, in fact, as far as defence is concerned, a lot of the preparatory work has been done: it is there and ready to be pulled down and presented by way of evidence to the review.
On the matter of spads, it is a little unfair to refer to people who are unable to be here to defend themselves. My experience of spads is limited but essentially positive—they can be an enormous help in the discharge of ministerial responsibility. It is very easy to get cheap headlines by knocking somebody because of the way they dress—no doubt, I could be knocked because of the way I dress—but I think what matters is the cerebral capacity that can be brought to the role, and I am absolutely satisfied about that.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, may I declare an experience, as the co-ordinator of the 2010 strategic defence and security review? Does the Minister agree that good strategy is about choosing and prioritising? Does she accept that one of the most crucial aspects of this review is that it should start with a clear statement of the Government’s vision for Britain’s role in the world—a realistic role that gets beyond the slogan of “global Britain”?
Baroness Goldie
I am grateful to the noble Lord; he gets to the nub of the issue. The review will indeed develop global Britain’s foreign policy. It will focus on our alliances and diplomacy, look at the trends and shifts in power and wealth to which I referred, and then determine how best we can use our international development resource.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord West of Spithead and Lord Ricketts; we need to be realistic about what the United Kingdom is trying to achieve. Apparently, this review of policy is supposed to be the most fundamental since the end of the Cold War. That sounds fine, but can we be reassured that, if it takes place alongside the comprehensive spending review, it will not be an excuse for the newly integrated No. 10 and Treasury spads to find ways of ensuring that the cloth is cut according to what the Treasury thinks? Will we have the resources that our place in the world and our defence needs require?
Baroness Goldie
The noble Baroness asks a serious question. In an endeavour to reassure her, let me say that the review is a serious, substantive proposition. As I have indicated, it examines areas of policy, defence strategy, alliances, international partnerships and so forth. The review is deliberately wide-ranging, as it has to be, but it will be underpinned by our existing commitments to contributing 2% of our GDP to NATO and 0.7% of GNI to development and, of course, to maintaining our nuclear deterrent, which will be a core part of the review.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, there is a general consensus that the 1997-98 strategic defence review was serious and thorough. It involved 14 months of consultation and included a panel of 18 external experts, submissions from 450 MoD civilian and service personnel, seminars with defence and foreign affairs specialists, written public submissions, and base visits so that 7,500 staff could express their views. If this is the biggest review of our foreign, defence, security and development policy since the end of the Cold War, as the Government keep repeating, can the Minister unambiguously confirm that the consultation will be at least equal to the 1997-98 process?
Baroness Goldie
In no way do I diminish the significance of the review to which the noble Lord refers; it was important and necessary. The world in which we live now, both domestically and globally, is very changed. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord West, a lot of the work that will be necessary to produce evidence for the review regarding the defence perspective in the UK has already been done. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will be aware that over the years, we have had the 2015 SDSR, the Contest strategy on counterterrorism, the national security capability review, the modernising defence programme, and the exciting and very effective transformation programme. A lot of that work is already in place, and a lot of evidence is available for the review.
Economic Affairs Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL]
Wednesday 4th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 View all Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-I Marshalled list for Committee - (21 Feb 2020)
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, we are coming to the end of a marathon—and for those of us who were here the first time the Bill went through, a double marathon. All the issues were thoroughly debated once and then thoroughly debated again. It is marvellous to think that now, at last, we are gift-wrapping this and sending it to the other end of the corridor for the other place to look at.
I believe that we have tidied up the Bill: the key points have been clearly made and the unresolved matters identified. We have spoken of accessibility, sustainability and legacy; financial sticking points have been identified; workers’ rights have been adumbrated; regular reports have been required; and the bifurcatory principle, with India now coming into the scheme, has been established, perhaps modelling good practice for the future. Inclusivity has been a repeated word, and the inner secrets of Birmingham New Street station have been revealed once and for all. Those matters must now be taken further in the other House, and we look forward to that.
I understand that we are not allowed to say thanks—so I will, but not to Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. I just want to say what a privilege it has been to be involved in a Bill that has been formulated by the whole House consensually across the Chamber. I look forward to many more such occasions in future—and I hope that tomorrow, in the debate on the BBC, we shall do exactly the same thing. I also want to say one word of courtesy to the Minister, who cut her teeth on the Bill. I am certain that we are going to dance together into the future.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and her predecessor, who have gone through the rather odd process of having to do most of the work on the Bill twice. We have tried to engage to ensure that people know how this will work, and give them an idea of what to expect from it. The Government, the whole House and the political structure have done a good thing in dealing with something that might not have happened unless Birmingham had taken it on. Durban could not do it, so Birmingham has taken it on, which means that the Commonwealth Games will go ahead. The Commonwealth is an institution that may well become more important in our lives, and it will have its big sporting festival. Sporting festivals are good things; thus endeth the lesson. We have brought something through, and the House has tried to achieve a degree of agreement and consensus on a common aim. I do not know whether we shall manage to go down that path very often, but when we can we should celebrate it, and I thank the Minister and my noble friend Lord Foster, who managed to make sure that we were still represented when I could not be here. I thank them both for their help; I enjoyed working through most of this process.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
As we are not allowed to say thank you, it would be remiss of me not to break the rules, along with the noble Lords opposite. I echo the thanks of the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths and Lord Addington, for being so constructive and helpful on the Bill, and I acknowledge the extraordinary expertise of the noble Lords who contributed to our proceedings. I learnt an enormous amount about many things that I never even knew existed, including, obviously, the signage at Birmingham New Street station.
Fisheries Bill [HL]
Wednesday 4th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-II(a) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the second marshalled list - (3 Mar 2020)
“( ) In addition to the fisheries objectives, section (Duty to sustain the UK fishing industry workforce) outlines responsibilities towards the UK fishing industry workforce.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that the Secretary of State has additional duties to the UK fishing industry workforce which extend beyond the general environmental and sustainability principles provided for in Clause 1.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 24 and 29, in my name, make it clear that the Secretary of State should have a wider regard to the national interest through exercising responsibilities to the UK fishing industry workforce, particularly its safety and training. They would require the Secretary of State to consult and produce a report within six months of the Bill being passed. The consultation should be a collaborative exercise involving cross-government engagement, the industry and a range of stakeholder groups.
The amendments are tabled with the support of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, and they are underpinned by continued concerns about the number of accidents and deaths at sea. Fishing is a dangerous industry and, unlike most other jobs, going to sea is incredibly physically demanding and requires extended periods away from home. It remains one of the most dangerous occupations in the world and every year there are deaths in UK waters, many of which are avoidable. The Sea Fish Industry Authority has identified 535 serious injuries to fishermen in the last 10 years, so we can and must do better.
It would be a start if there were a co-ordinated approach to training new entrants to help future generations to begin their careers in a safe and sustainable manner. The introduction of remote electronic monitoring equipment on boats, which is covered by other amendments, would also help maintain safety standards. It is also vital that we set the same high safety standards on foreign vessels as we expect of our domestic fleet, and the licensing arrangements should help facilitate that.
So, although our domestic safety standards are high, the amendments would require the Government to show how they intend to build upon them once we are outside the common frameworks and responsible for our own safety policy development. The amendments would also require the Government to highlight how they intend to assist the industry in identifying, training and retaining new talent to ensure a vibrant industry in the years to come.
Finally, we need an immigration system that allows UK vessels to continue to recruit skilled non-UK nationals to help plug the short-term skills gaps. All these measures need to come together in an overarching plan to build and sustain the fisheries’ future, grow the industry and revive coastal communities. This is vital if we are to realise the objectives in Clause 1. I beg to move.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support both amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch; I have added my name to Amendment 29. As the noble Baroness said, the purpose of both her amendments is to introduce requirements on the Secretary of State to build and sustain the UK fishing industry. They would also require the publication of a strategy for enhancing the safety of fishers and providing the necessary legal and training infrastructure. The amendments are supported by fish producer organisations throughout the UK.
For many coastal communities, the fishing industry, both onshore and offshore, is critical to their growth, development, job creation potential and local economy. In that respect, I remind noble Lords of the County Down fishing ports, about which I have already spoken to the Minister, where the fishing villages survive and thrive due to the prevalence of the fishing fleet and the fish-processing industries.
Allied with that, though, is a high level of risk and danger. Deaths of fishermen have occurred in the Irish Sea over the last 20 years. I think of one particular family from Kilkeel where a grandfather, a son and his son all perished on one night about 20 years ago. The fishing industry believes that there is a once-in-a-generation opportunity not only to revive those coastal communities and grow the region’s industry role as leaders in sustainable fisheries management but to ensure that this worthy profession is provided with adequate and up-to-date training; that incentives are provided to those who wish to engage in fishing as a profession; and that they are provided with the necessary qualifications in a safe environment to do so.
Take the example of the County Down fishing ports, where about 1,700 people are employed in fishing. I suppose on a proportionate basis, taken throughout the UK, that is not considered a lot. However, in those communities, it is, because fishing is vital to their revitalisation.
The Bill is about setting the future legal framework for fisheries management, but it is also right that Government, Parliament and industry consider how to grow and sustain the workforce needed if new opportunities are to be realised.
The three central themes of these amendments are to protect and enhance the safety of workers across the industry; to develop that modern legal and training infrastructure that helps to grow our domestic workforce; and to shape an immigration system that allows UK vessels to continue to recruit skilled non-UK nationals. I am mindful of the Minister’s written response on this issue to all of us who participated at Second Reading some three weeks ago, in which he said:
“We will prioritise the skills a person has to offer, not their nationality.”
I note that, through the prospective immigration Bill, Defra is working closely with the Home Office to ensure that there is a long-term strategy for the food, farming and fisheries workforce as part of the immigration policy. I hope that the Government will be able to accommodate skilled non-EEA fishers to contribute to the revitalisation of those coastal communities, as well as protecting and enhancing the legal and training infrastructure of all domestic workforces.
I believe that if our fishing industry is to recover and become the catalyst for economic regeneration in our coastal communities again, there is a duty on all of us, and on the Government, to work in a collaborative way with the industry and other relevant organisations to achieve that objective, which should be placed in legislation. That is why I support both amendments.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I have not participated in these debates, but I wanted to support this amendment because of the emphasis on safety. I do so, my Lords, for personal reasons. I was born in Grimsby just before the Second World War. Grimsby was in those days the largest fishing port in the world. The title was sometimes disputed by our friendly rival and neighbour across the Humber in Hull. Certainly, those two great fishing ports occupied the first and the second positions.
My family had generations in the fishing industry, coming down first from Eyemouth in the Borders of Scotland with smacks when the fishing industry was established around the middle of the 19th century. I was brought up to have great respect for those who went down to the sea in ships. That respect was reinforced by great sadness almost every year, because there was hardly a year when a trawler was not lost, often with the deaths of 20 or 30 men. This brought great grief, either to Grimsby or Hull.
As a young man growing up, I knew all this theoretically. But then, in 1965, I was chosen as the Conservative candidate for Grimsby for the election that in fact took place in 1966. For some 18 or 19 days in August 1965, I went on a deep-sea trawler and lived with the fishermen on board, and got up when the cod end was swung in and the catch was teemed on the deck. Although it was August, we faced at least one force 8 gale; we were also becalmed for a time. I saw the extraordinary skill, courage and resilience of the fishermen. You can understand it only if you have seen it at first hand. They were a wonderful bunch of men, marvellous comrades. The cook was not the most brilliant, but he had been a fisherman until forced to retire in his late 60s and then he became a cook. There was a wonderful spirit of camaraderie and there was great skill, but there was always great danger.
I became very sad when, following our joining what was then the Common Market, the fishing industry was certainly hit—I speak as one who was, as many of your Lordships know, a fervent remainer. If we are to revive our fishing industry, as I hope we will, it is tremendously important that we place emphasis on training and appreciating those who are trained. They have to be immensely strong, resilient and courageous, working at all hours of day and night and rarely getting more than a handful of hours of sleep. A revived fishing industry will depend wholly on those people. It is therefore right that we concentrate for a few moments on this issue and I feel it appropriate to give my words of support in this context.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I concur with the sentiments of the previous speaker. However, I fear that the amendments are misconceived in calling for the building of a fishing industry workforce. Even if one were to argue in favour of a substantial increase in the size of the UK catch, which would be utterly wrong in the current circumstances of depleted fish stocks, it would not require an increased workforce.
There is already significant underemployment in the fishing workforce, since advances in fishing technology have reduced labour requirements. We should therefore seek alternative employment for our fishermen, unless we seek to ban the technology. This is the technology of the big boats that use sonar to locate the fish, chart their positions by GPS and use encrypted messages conveyed by satellites to alert other vessels in their fleets to their discovery of the prize. They also take most of the fish.
Were fish stocks to be replenished, less effort would need to be devoted to fishing and fewer fishermen would need to be employed. There would no longer be a need to search the vast expanses of the marine deserts in pursuit of the few remaining shoals of fish.
Perhaps I might also remark on the idea that the fish stocks in our so-called exclusive economic zone are a resource that belongs exclusively to our nation, as more than one speaker has maintained. Our EEZ, which is of an exorbitant extent in comparison with those of other European fishing nations, was bequeathed to us by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It was the by-product of an intention to protect the fish stocks of Iceland, which were suffering from the depredations of foreign fishing fleets. It was never the intention of the convention to disbar other European nations from their traditional fishing grounds, yet this is what our fishermen are keen to achieve, seemingly with the support of the Government.
It is a recipe for trouble and conflict, notwithstanding the joy that it has given to my noble friend Lord Grocott, who is exhilarated at the prospect of claiming these fish stocks for the nation. It is foolish. While we were debating the Fisheries Bill on Monday, the International Trade Secretary, Liz Truss, and the French Minister for European Affairs, Amélie de Montchalin, were rehearsing the terms of a major confrontation on fishing rights.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendment 29 in her name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.
As many have indicated previously, fishing is a dangerous occupation, one where injuries and death occur on an alarmingly regular basis, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, so elegantly told us. For every fisherman and woman employed on a vessel involved in fishing, 10 are employed in landing and processing fish. All those employed in the fishing industry as a whole should be protected and enjoy similar employment rights to those who work in other sectors. The Government should take steps to ensure that those engaged in the fishing industry, whether offshore or onshore, should be protected as far as is possible, and the Government should produce a strategy to ensure this happens. Each person engaged in the industry should be aware that the Government have such a strategy and that their welfare is key to the industry’s success.
Training, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Ritchie, have said, is—as it is in everything—key to ensuring safety is carried out and observed. This must be a legal requirement and entitlement for all in the UK fishing industry workforce. It should not be left to the discretion of the vessel or processing plant owners. I fully support these amendments and the need to work for a strategy to sustain the UK fishing industry workforce to be in the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her proposed Amendments 24 and 29, which would introduce additional duties in the form of safety requirements for fishing activities and training requirements for the UK fishing industry workforce.
In this short debate, we are absolutely at one that these are extremely important matters, and I would like to put on record, as I did at Second Reading, my recognition and regard for those who go to sea to catch fish for our consumption; I pay tribute to them. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, referred to a family who were very brave and courageous in sustaining the losses that they did. My noble friend Lord Cormack reminded me of those communities, such as coal mining communities and agricultural communities, doing dangerous tasks over the years for our benefit. I therefore identify with all of what has been said. It is important that we support fishers with increased health and safety provisions as well as further training to increase the awareness of dangers and the understanding of how to respond to them.
That is why I say specifically to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that Defra is working closely with other UK departments and agencies to ensure that fishing becomes an increasingly safe and—although I think it is appealing in many ways—“appealing” form of employment, as my notes say. I was very struck by the point that my noble friend Lord Cormack made about camaraderie. That cook probably continued to go to sea, though no longer fishing, because he did not know how to live outside of that community. I am very struck by that sense of community —which is why the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, spoke in the way that he did on an earlier day in Committee—because these communities feel very strongly about these matters. This work is under way and will consider regulations and other work, which is also under way as I said.
Safety at sea is not just a specific fishing activity issue; it is a vessel issue. The safety of all vessels falls within the remit of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Provisions for the safety of vessels are included in the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1997. In addition, the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 provides the MCA with powers to implement all the safety legislation.
The Government are, importantly, also taking action through our apprenticeship programme and the Post-16 Skills Plan to reform technical education and a new careers strategy for the UK fishing industry workforce. The Sea Fish Industry Authority—known as Seafish—leads the development and delivery of training for workers in all sectors of the seafood supply chain. Seafish has applied levy funds to develop training programmes and learning materials aimed at the seafood processing sector to enhance the skills and quality of operations and final products. In addition, the Seafood Industry Leadership Group, established by Seafish to deliver Seafood 2040: A Strategic Framework for England, will deliver a single cross-sector seafood training and skills plan, aiming to support businesses in the seafood supply chain to recruit workers with suitable skills.
England’s new domestic grant scheme, the Maritime and Fisheries Fund—the MFF—can support training projects for fishers. Under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund—the EMFF—around £3.5 million was spent on improving skills and training up to 31 December 2019. The Bill provides the power, in Clause 33, to introduce grant schemes through regulations for health, safety and training.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, referred to my letter. I should also add that Defra is considering the latest data and working closely with industry to understand and explore the labour demand and supply requirements for both the permanent and seasonal workforces, which are of course very important.
I wanted to explain the current situation to the noble Baroness, so that this is not in a void. I absolutely understand the points that have been made. All these responsibilities are in existence. I hope that this explanation of the regulations, the further work that is under way and the legal requirements that already exist on this important matter mean that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment. If during the passage of this Bill, or indeed afterwards, those noble Lords for whom this is a particular concern would like further discussions on what is under way, I would be very happy to facilitate that, because this is an area where we have a duty to coastal communities to show that we are on their side.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend gave a very helpful reply, but I was involved with safety of the fishing fleet many blue moons ago, and there is of course the private sector. He mentioned the boats, but the work of the skipper in handling the boat in difficult conditions is something beyond the control of any Government. Given climate change, our fishermen will face increased hazards with the amount of gales we seem to be getting. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, raised an important point. If we are working on a sustainability basis and sustainability tells us that we should not be fishing, there has to be something else for the fishermen, particularly as we move to bigger boats with better radar. Does my noble friend have any idea what the potential is for an increase in the workforce as a result of our becoming an island state in control of our own fishing? What are his thoughts about having flexible training to give the fishermen opportunities to find alternative jobs when, for governmental reasons, they are not allowed to fish? My noble friend Lord Cormack referred to the cook—and my noble friend Lord Gardiner picked up that point—but if there were more general training, it might help them into work within the coastal community during those lean times.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the whole point about sustainability is that we have moved, as I said in an earlier discussion, from 12%, I think it is, to 59% of the stocks that we know about now being fished at MSY. The whole thrust of what we want to do is to improve stocks and know more about them, so that there will be more fishing opportunities. We believe that there are opportunities, with our new arrangements, to do much more work in the short, medium and long term. We are coming on to fishery management plans and so forth, so that we are going to be more sustainable.
I am afraid that I cannot crystal ball gaze. My noble friend will know, having been a Fisheries Minister, that crystal ball gazing as to the size of the fleet or the numbers of people engaged in it over the next 30 or 40 years is difficult, but I have spoken about financial support, in terms of the new domestic grant scheme for training. One of the difficulties comes with very experienced people. This training is a continuum, and I can think of some skippers who have been at sea all their lives and therefore probably think further training is not required. Continuous understanding of different conditions, improvements in boats and in gear and equipment are all areas by which we will start to reduce bycatch and modernise fishing. They are all areas where we need to work collaboratively with fishing communities.
My noble friend may be being overly negative in his spirit about fishing opportunities. If we get to a sustainable harvest, which is what predicates all our work—the framework of the Bill is about moving towards sustainable fish stocks—then we will get to a point where we can harvest. This is a hugely important part of our food resource, in feeding our nation and beyond.
Lord Krebs
Thank you. I have a further question in relation to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Although it may be difficult to project what the size of the fishing fleet might be in the future, there are surely statistics, which I invite the Minister to quote, on the current increase in efficiency of fishing vessels in the United Kingdom fleet—that is, catch per unit effort. How much has catch per unit effort increased over the last two decades, for example?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I wrote to your Lordships, and I can read what I said in that letter about the size of the fleet, if that would help:
“Lord Krebs raised a question about advances in technology leading to a smaller fishing fleet. As technology advances, the UK fleet may be able to catch more fish in a more efficient and targeted way, which is one of the reasons why the Bill includes a sustainability objective. The sustainability objective in the Bill includes a fleet capacity objective, seeking to ensure that fleets are balanced with fishing opportunities available and that they are economically viable but do not overexploit stocks. Given this objective, we will assess the impact of any additional quota that is negotiated once fishers start to fish against it, as it relates to the size of the fleet.
As to more precise details, I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, we have had a very interesting discussion arising from these amendments. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for giving us some very moving examples of the tragedies that can occur at sea. I was very taken by the noble Lord’s description, and the message that came through to me was how reliant those vessels are on each other, so that a mistake by one person who does not know what they are doing affects not just that person’s life or livelihood; it can actually bring the whole vessel down.
That underlines the absolute need for everybody on the boats to know what they are doing and to have the appropriate level of skills to make sure that nobody is put in unnecessary danger. The licensing regime that underpins the arrangements in the Bill provides a new opportunity for us to set standards and say, “We won’t license the boat unless the people on your vessel can all prove a certain level of knowledge and skills.” It happens in other industries, and I do not see why we should not have something similar in the fishing sector, so we could be more proactive on this.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate some issues that have not yet been covered in the debate on Clause 1. In particular, I refer to the political declaration, which says that
“Parties should cooperate on the development of measures for the conservation, rational management and regulation of fisheries, in a non-discriminatory manner.”
I am particularly taken by Clause 1(2) and the reference to contributing to the “availability of food supplies”. I recognise that the fishing fleet plays a significant role in bringing food to the table. We have just had a debate on how dangerous those activities can be, but it is important to recognise the substantial contribution it makes to the food supply in this country. Clause 1(8) states:
“The ‘national benefit objective’ is that fishing activities of UK fishing boats bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom.”
I make a brief plea to my noble friend. In recognising that economic link, will the Government consider the fact that active fishermen should benefit from this and that as far as possible it should not be non-fisheries activity that do? I am mindful of the fact that some of the quota is owned by non-fisheries entities—indeed, by football clubs and others. Will my noble friend and the Government take this opportunity to make sure that active fishermen will continue to benefit from the national benefit objective and from the foreseen economic benefits for the United Kingdom?
My remaining remarks relate to the precautionary principle in Clause 1(10)(b). Can my noble friend explain how the landing of fish will be recorded in every circumstance? I know that later parts of the Bill look at bycatch and discards, but how will the precautionary principle be applied and what will be the relationship between the principle and the maximum sustainable yield? Will it be enough to look at the usual understanding, which is that that will keep sufficient stock within safe biological limits? I ask this because we have been told that the Government’s stated objective is to replace the equivalent objectives in Article 2 of the basic regulations of the common fisheries policy but, while some of the wording relies on Article 2, it does not entirely replicate it. For example, the precautionary objective in Clause 1 admits the requirement in the EU regulation to achieve the maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate by 2020 at the latest for all stocks. Are the Government still adhering to that objective?
There are other requirements relating to maximum sustainable yield elsewhere, particularly in Clause 6, which I shall want to debate further. Also, the ecosystem objective set out in the EU regulation requires fisheries to be managed so as to ensure that the negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised. The ecosystem objective in Clause 1 goes further, setting an objection to ensure that negative impacts are minimised and, where possible, reversed. Will my noble friend take the opportunity to explain why that is? I know that he has said on many occasions that we will go further than the EU, but why have we taken the opportunity to do that here?
My noble friend will understand that I do not wish to remove Clause 1, but I want to understand it better. It is important that we revert to the precautionary approach to fisheries management wherever possible, but my underlying concern is to ensure that active fishermen will be the principal definition.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I do not have a great deal to add to the words of the noble Baroness, who has obviously used this debate to ask for clarification from the Minister on a number of questions. I do not disagree with that, but I do not necessarily support the aim of questioning that Clause 1 should stand part, so I shall leave it to the Minister to answer his noble friend’s questions.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for enabling me to wrap up why the Government feel that Clause 1 is so important to shaping our fisheries management regime for the future. The objectives, which have been under considerable discussion, support our commitment to leave the natural environment in a better state. As noble Lords are well aware, Clause 1 sets out eight fisheries objectives that will shape and guide the fisheries policies of the four fisheries administrations. They build on and develop the objectives set out in the common fisheries policy.
The aim of the first objective—the sustainability objective—is to ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable while delivering economic and social benefits. My noble friend Lady McIntosh, particularly in raising the aim of the second objective—the precautionary objective—stresses that the absence of adequate scientific information should not justify postponing or failing to take management measures that will conserve fish stock and its environment. This objective includes our commitment to achieve maximum sustainable yield for all stocks as quickly as practically possible.
I stress that the UK has always been a strong advocate for fishing within safe ecological limits such as MSY, both in international agreements and in negotiations over catch limits for stocks we have an interest in. I say specifically that this will not change. The new provision in the Bill to produce fisheries management plans, which we will discuss at a later point, further supports this ambition.
The clause also makes clear that effective fisheries management needs to take into account the wider implications for the marine environment. The aim of the third objective—the ecosystem objective—is therefore to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised. This will help ensure that we have a healthy marine environment on which our fisheries resources and others rely. This includes addressing the issue of incidental catches of sensitive species. The clause recognises the need to reverse negative impacts to meet our ambition to restore our marine environment. The availability and use of good data are vital for effective management of our precious marine resources. The fourth objective, therefore—the scientific evidence objective— confirms our commitment to contribute to the collection and sharing of data between the fisheries administrations; and that fisheries and aquaculture activities are based on the best available science.
The fifth objective is the bycatch objective. Its aim is that bycatch is avoided or reduced, that catches are recorded and accounted for, and that bycatch—that is, fish—is landed where appropriate. Tackling bycatch tackles the root cause of discarding, and the UK Government remain fully committed to ending the wasteful discarding of fish, acknowledging the impact this can have on fisheries management and the marine environment.
The equal access objective confirms the position of the four fisheries administrations, which noble Lords have discussed—that UK fishing fleets should continue to have access to fish across UK waters regardless of their UK home port. Another point that my noble friend Lady McIntosh raised was on the national benefit objective. As I have set out, this recognises the importance of fishing by UK boats to our coastal communities and the UK more generally. The objective will therefore ensure that the fisheries administrations set out policies that help realise economic and social benefits from UK boats, including those under foreign ownership. In terms of UK-registered vessels, and regardless of who owns the quota, the economic link is precisely designed to ensure that coastal communities are advantaged.
The aim of the climate change objective—a new objective that came into this list—is that the impact of the fishing and aquaculture sectors on climate change is minimised and that their management adapts in response to climate change. These objectives, and the steps we will set out in the fisheries statements on how we will achieve them, are integral to protecting our precious marine environment and maintaining profitable fishing and aquaculture industries today and, of course, for the years to come. This is absolutely why it is so important to the environment that the next generation is prepared to go to sea to ensure a sustainable harvest, which is after all what we all seek.
I will look at Hansard to check if there were any further points that my noble friend has raised, but I have no further information so will make sure that I cover them with another letter as soon as I can. I hope that noble Lords have already received the letter arising from Monday. In the meantime, I hope that I have given her—she probably approves of much of Clause 1—the opportunity to understand that these are hugely important objectives. They set the framework from which we all must now take these matters forward. I hope that she will feel able to agree to Clause 1.
Lord Teverson (LD)
Perhaps I could just follow up on a couple of the things that the Minister stated are important. As he knows, one of the things I questioned on Monday was the equal access objective. He made rather a different point going through the objectives today than he did to me on Monday. If I recall, he said that that objective means there is equal access to fish. I think he said in his answer to me on Monday that the equal access is to waters, rather than to actual fish. If there is equal access to fish, that concerns me greatly.
I take the Minister’s point about the Government not changing their attitude to sustainability. I want to make the obvious point, and I know that he will not disagree. While I would not question for a minute this Minister’s—or maybe even this Government’s—wish to have sustainability as the most important point, we have to make sure that that is true for future Governments, who might not have the same sensitivities as this Government. That is why we spent a lot of time on Monday trying to clarify the sustainability objective. If it is fudged, as it is at the minute, that will allow future Governments to move away from those pure sustainability objectives in marine ecology without changing the legislation.
Does the Minister see these fishing objectives as a reserved or a devolved matter? I would be interested to understand that.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I might need to clarify this, but on the noble Lord’s first point, using “to fish” as a verb refers to the act of fishing. I will look at what I said on Monday and what I said today, but as far as I am concerned equal access enables UK fishing vessels to have that access across UK waters. This enables, for instance, English vessels to fish in what would be Scottish waters, and all the arrangements of the four fishing administrations.
The most important thing is that I do not mislead the noble Lord, or anyone, if there was a looseness of mine either on Monday or today. I am very clear that this equal access objective confirms the position of the four fisheries administrations regarding the abilities of UK fishing vessels in the act of fishing. I do not want to play with words; I want to get this right, because I believe the equal access objective is important for all four parts of the United Kingdom. This is something that the four fisheries administrations have come to agree.
We might have a collision point on sustainability. I think we all agree that, if we overfish our stocks, the safety at sea objectives will be academic, because there will not be any fish to fish. Given this set of objectives on bycatch, climate change, precaution and science, I do not think that this Government or a future Government will suddenly think that having sustainable fish stocks is not a desirable objective towards which we should all work. I very much hope that, by the time that there is a new Government, we will have achieved many of these objectives, in the same way we have gone up from 12% to 59% fishing of MSY. The objective is that we need sustainability for all stocks, and the precautionary objective is very important. One of the things that we must all wrestle with is that currently, we do not have adequate scientific information on all stocks and we need a better assessment. That is why the precautionary objective is in place. The aim is for the activities to be environmentally sustainable, while delivering economic and social benefits. As I said in the agricultural context, we must ensure that farmers produce food and enhance the environment, both of which are entirely compatible.
This Government have not invented the idea that sustainability involves social and economic considerations; this is a UN framework for interpreting sustainability. If we are so rigid that there is only one view, where will the coastal communities be? I have been thinking a lot about this and about how to deploy the arguments at Report, so I must not say too much. We need to think about ratcheting sustainability to one element of the prism, which I am prepared to say is the essential part. However, if the law said that we could not have arrangements whereby moving upwards from 59% involved nuances and an ability to keep coastal communities alive, in order to work to sustainable harvest for all stocks, that would make it a blunt instrument.
We are all on the same page, and I am sure about what we want. However, I am afraid that the Government are not going to suggest that we should not think about the social and economic consequences. I am clear, given the comments of noble Lords who spoke about sustainability and then spoke to the amendments about economic and social benefits, that we want the same thing. However, to put one objective beyond all others in what is a balanced package will result in something that none of us wants.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I think the noble Baroness will want to talk about this issue on Report. Perhaps I now regret taking us down that line, but of course, I will give way.
Baroness Worthington
On the question of balance, social and economic questions tend to take care of themselves because they create incumbents who then have power in lobbying the system we put in place. The reason why we are so interested in trying to level up the sustainability issue is that there is not a natural way to represent that in the economy. The economy is an active and very influential factor in politics—we must admit that. If it was not, we would not have seen the fish stocks collapse as they have. It is our job as legislators to think about balance: where does the power lie today, and what do we have to do to level up?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That is a very intriguing aspect of an issue that we will wrestle with on Report, but we are all on the same page in many respects. I need to refine my arguments, and perhaps we might then meet somewhere. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and all noble Lords, for this rather elongated discussion.
Lord Teverson
I had a question about whether the objectives were effectively a reserved area, or a devolved area and the Administrations had come together and agreed this. Are they a reserved area or not?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Again, I will probably need to take some advice, possibly legal. The management of fisheries is devolved. The great thing about what has happened—I had no part in the discussions, so I can say this—is that the fisheries administrations of the four parts of the United Kingdom have come together with these objectives. I have the privilege of taking this Bill through the House, but it is at the request of, and the work of, all four Administrations.
We all know about international agreements. This is a domestic agreement between the four fisheries administrations, working collaboratively in the interests of fish stocks and of the communities, which are very important. If there is any flavour of ambiguity in what I have said regarding the legal position, I will put this information in the letter. This is absolutely the work of the four Administrations, seeking to do the right thing for fish stocks and for the communities that harvest the fish for us.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
There are still some things to answer in respect of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. It seems to me that the ability to deliver on the objectives in this clause depends almost entirely on the joint fisheries statements and the fisheries plans. There are quite a few loopholes that enable the fisheries administrations to wriggle around the requirements in the joint fisheries statements and the fisheries plans—extenuating circumstances, as it were.
We are in a strange position. Although the objectives may well be shared by each of the four fisheries administrations, because of the way they are implemented —through the joint fisheries statements and the plans that have to adhere to the statements, except where there are extenuating circumstances—we might find that these are very delegated, very devolved decisions. We may be lost between the devil and the deep blue sea, if that is not the wrong thing to say about a Fisheries Bill.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
This piece of work is an honest endeavour. Yes, the issues are devolved unless they are internationally related. All objectives must be interpreted proportionately—that is a requirement of the Bill. Interestingly, I have come across a number of noble Lords who would have been wholly in favour of devolution but, now that this actually is devolved, think that there may be problems. We are working very collaboratively with the devolved Administrations. Of course, there are a lot of totemic issues for many of those communities—indeed, in England this is also a totemic matter.
I think the noble Baroness has one or two amendments on this matter in later groups. We have to be frank: these are devolved matters and that is why the coming together of the four fisheries administrations for this Bill is really important. We should see that achievement as a positive, rather than a negative.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to debate what I thought were non-controversial matters. Part of the answer is that this Bill provides the legal basis on which the fishing authorities of each of the four nations will proceed, so we are giving legal clarity as we go along. I think that is very helpful.
I just wanted to put down a marker regarding my remaining concern. There is a gap in our knowledge of fish stocks, which is presumably why Clause 1(10) exists. Even ICES cannot explain where the species have gone that have moved out of our waters and European waters generally because the waters are warming. We are not fishing in the areas, so we do not know. That may pose a bigger problem as climate change proceeds. It is entirely appropriate to have climate change and all the objectives in the Bill.
I am very grateful for the debate, and I will not oppose the clause.
“Duty to achieve fisheries objectives
Any public authority having any function relating to fish and aquaculture activities or fisheries management must exercise its functions in order to achieve the fisheries objectives.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to place a legal duty on any public authority with any function related to fisheries to achieve the objectives.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, this amendment largely speaks for itself. It is all very well having all the noble objectives in Clause 1—made, one hopes, even more noble if some of our discussions to date bear fruit in the future—but, as they used to say in 16th-century diplomatic circles, “Fine words butter no parsnips”.
Once we are cast adrift on the post-Brexit realities of running our own fisheries, there will be numerous parties all promoting their own visions. The parties will range from the fishermen themselves to the local communities, local authorities, LEPs, the MMO and the devolved nations. They might even wiggle, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said a moment ago. They will also include the Secretaries of State at Defra and BEIS—after all, fishing is an industry and a business—and even the Secretary of State at the Department for International Trade. I suspect that at some point in the future—probably quite a long time down the line—they will have priorities that do not necessarily liaise with the objectives in Clause 1. The visions of all those bodies will be influenced by wholly separate objectives that might or might not be in line with Clause 1.
Politics in action, both local and national, has a tendency to be influenced by lobbying, usually involving specific interests, and, as Harold Macmillan was apparently wont to say, “Events, dear boy”—both of which tend, in turn, to be influenced by rather shorter-term objectives than the long-term sustainable priorities that we are all trying to achieve in Clause 1.
My amendment is hardly dictatorial, but I hope that it is a good starting point for discussion. The Minister will remember our debate last year on the then Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill, in which local authorities were given a “must have regard to” obligation concerning the environment and biodiversity. What happened? In most cases, absolutely nothing. The noble words of the objectives in the NERC Bill did not enter anyone’s thinking or area of responsibility. Other problems such as roads, housing and the local economy were more pressing—that is the lobbying influence—and austerity overtook any good intentions that there might have been. That is the “Events, dear boy” bit of the equation. We must not let that happen to our sustainable fisheries objectives.
In his reply, the Minister will no doubt refer to Clause 2(1)(c), where the fisheries policy authorities have to make a statement on how “proportionately” they have applied the Clause 1 objectives—but what mealy-mouthed words are those? I totally support Amendment 30, which would remove the word “proportionately”. In spite of that, there is no legal obligation even to have a duty of care towards the Clause 1 objectives, let alone to promote and implement them, which is what I am trying to achieve.
The Government will also likely argue that the joint fisheries statements and fisheries management plans are where the policies that will achieve the fisheries objectives will be set out and that, as the joint fisheries statement and fisheries management plan will be legally binding, there is no need to have a commitment on the face of the Bill to achieve the objectives. However, there is currently too much flexibility around how the joint fisheries statements and fisheries management plans are to be drafted, and no detail about the timeframes. Moreover, there is the ability to opt out or amend the joint fisheries statement where there is a “relevant change of circumstances”, as referred to in Clauses 7 and 10. A relevant change of circumstances can include a socioeconomic change—“Events, dear boy”.
Experience in Scotland, which has a similar provision in the Marine (Scotland) Act, has shown that, where that opt-out exists, environmental considerations can get pushed to one side in favour of economic impacts, and important measures that could benefit the environment are not taken. Six years after the designation of the Small Isles Marine Protected Area, fishing continues unchecked over the protected features, because a hole in the Act has allowed the authorities to opt out. I am trying to prevent such a hole in our Bill. In his reply a moment ago, the Minister referred to this: that, while unlikely, there is a risk that a future Government might not be so committed to sustainable fisheries, and they could amend fisheries management plans or let aberrations in those plans, or in joint fisheries statements, go through unchecked.
Frankly, my Lords, without my proposed new clause inserting a legal duty to achieve the fisheries objectives, Clause 1 is merely a series of hopeful words. As I say, it will certainly butter no parsnips—nor, for that matter, sustain a long-term and profitable UK fishing industry.
Lord Krebs
My Lords, I speak in support of my noble friend’s amendment, and apologise for not being here on Monday as I was overseas and unable to join the debate. However, I read the account in Hansard very carefully, and it seems to me that, as has indeed been said this afternoon, one of the key problems that a number of us have with the Bill relates not to its apparent intent—we are very happy with that—but the amount of wriggle room that is left in the Bill.
We heard again, in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, a few minutes ago, about the wriggle room around the meaning of sustainability. We all agree that sustainability has three pillars—the economic, the social and the environmental—but there is a question of how you balance them. The Minister referred to the need to balance them, but how you do this leaves a great deal of wriggle room. I will not repeat the arguments that were rehearsed on Monday, and again briefly earlier this afternoon, about the way in which economic considerations will always tend to trump environmental considerations because the short term is here and now, and the long term is the next generation’s problem.
This amendment that my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington is proposing is attempting to narrow down a further possibility of wriggle room. As he has so eloquently explained, without a legally binding commitment on the noteworthy and honourable and desirable objectives, it is not clear whether they will be adhered to in the fisheries statements and fisheries management plans. So the question for me is: who is going to be accountable if the objectives are not met, and what sanctions will be placed on the fisheries authorities, or other bodies, if that happens? I do not wish to repeat the arguments that my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington rehearsed so eloquently, but I would like clarity on the question of accountability.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest again today—if I may do it once, rather than each time I speak. As I mentioned on Monday, the company of which I am a director is in a partnership with an agency whose clients include UK fisheries.
I know we discussed this, but with Amendment 28 the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has enabled us to illustrate a question. It will be interesting to hear my noble friend’s answer, but I am afraid I cannot bring myself to agree that the amendment is needed. By virtue of Clause 10, national fisheries policy authorities are required to make fisheries statements—either a joint fisheries statement or a Secretary of State fisheries statement—and fisheries management plans, and they are obliged to do so in ways that show how they wish to balance the objectives.
We know that there are eight objectives. We discussed all that on Monday, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, quite rightly said. We acknowledge that this range of objectives presents a particularly testing task for the fisheries policy authorities. There is a relatively large number of objectives and several are, in themselves, relatively testing. As far as I can see, virtually none of them can be said either to have been achieved or not achieved. One is always in a process of seeking to achieve them. The balance that is struck, and the extent to which one achieves those objectives, is entirely the issue.
Clause 10 makes it clear that, whenever the national fishing policy authorities engage in anything to do with fishing or aquaculture, they must seek to apply the objectives in doing so. That is the link between Clause 1 and the rest of the Bill. Why then do I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has asked an interesting question, to which I do not know the answer? It is because he said that there are many public authorities that are not necessarily fisheries policy authorities. This is true. When setting objectives in relation to one sector of governmental activity, we would not normally expect to include a clause every time saying, “Oh and by the way, it must apply to every sector of government whatever it happens to be doing.” I do not go down that path; but, in this instance, we live in a world where the relationship between access to fish stocks and quota will potentially, in certain circumstances, be part of the same negotiation as the trade and market access relationships that we have with other countries.
My question, off the back of the noble Lord’s amendment, is: are the fisheries objectives—and, by extension, joint fisheries statements and the like—regarded as equally applicable to the Department for International Trade as to any national fisheries policy authorities?
Lord Swinfen (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I might seek clarification from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. As I read his amendment, it could equally apply to fresh water—rivers, streams and lakes—as well as the sea. I do not think that that is his objective at all, or the objective of the Bill, but as I read his amendment, it could also deal with freshwater fishing.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, as far as I am concerned, I am dealing only with coastal fisheries and marine fish.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I looked at this very carefully as it is a fairly concise amendment. I picked up on the three words—and indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has kindly enlarged and reflected upon them—“any public authority”. That, to me, is huge, as there are so many different aspects of public authority. It goes on to say
“having any function relating to fish and aquaculture activities … must exercise its functions in order to achieve the fisheries objectives.”
I have no disagreement with the noble Lord, or indeed with other Members who have spoken on the need for sustainability; that is, I hope, accepted around this Chamber. But I was a little alarmed. I started noting down county councils, local councils, borough councils, police and all sorts of different authorities. I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider slightly narrowing his expression. Knowing the immense pressures on so many of these authorities at this time, I wonder if it is not a step too far. While I accept in principle the thrust of what he is trying to do, I think that referring to “Any public authority” having “any function” is too open-ended and goes a bit too far.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I see the need for something like the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, but I find it difficult to believe that any public authority will necessarily have the power to
“exercise its functions in order to achieve the fisheries objectives.”
Is an authority supposed to cover all of them, part of them, or what? I cannot see how that can work, where there are different authorities, some of which have a marginal connection with fisheries and aquaculture—such as the enforcement authorities, for example. I have tried, in a later amendment, to approach this subject in requiring the plans to set out how they have integrated the fisheries objectives.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. It is obvious common sense. When I first read the Bill I never even thought about there being a gap, but as soon as we see the amendment we have that lightbulb moment: there is a gap. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, if no duty is stated in the Act, this just will not happen. I have been critical of the number and style of some of the objectives, and the fact that there is no priority within them. However, I am clear that once this has been resolved—or even if it remains as it is—that duty must be there.
On Monday we had a debate on an amendment of mine about the office for environmental protection, and I would have thought that this amendment would strengthen that body’s role in making sure that some of the things in this area happen. I do not know whether or not the Government would like that, but if there is a duty there, there will be much more ability to enforce the objectives that the Government and the devolved authorities feel are so important.
I take the noble and learned Lord’s point about the range of authorities. Maybe that needs reconsidering; I am not sure. We should not forget that many unitary local authorities on the coast of England are strongly involved in inshore fisheries and conservation authorities —IFCAs—which in many ways are an animal of local government. We should remember that public authorities include not only the devolved authorities, the Secretary of State or the enforcement organisations, but local authorities, which are at the heart of much of the management of our territorial waters—the 0-6 mile limit.
I strongly support the amendment, and even if it is not perfect I encourage the noble Lord to bring it back on Report—if, indeed, he does not intend to test the opinion of the House this afternoon.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for tabling Amendment 28, and to other noble Lords who have made comments in this short debate. I agree that, although the drafting may not be entirely correct, we must not lose the crucial point. The amendment raises an important matter, because at this juncture, as the UK becomes an independent coastal state outside the EU, there must be a signal to the whole industry, including any relevant public authority or other body, that it must make sure that its strategic objectives align with this reality and that it sets its strategic direction towards supporting the fisheries objectives included in Clause 1.
It is worth repeating that, although many of those objectives are a legacy of the UK’s membership of the common fisheries policy, they have been expanded, updated and made more relevant to the UK, with the addition of three important key objectives. On Monday I drew attention to the new climate change objective. Adding this duty for public authorities to have regard to the objectives means that they must ensure that their activities comply and that any objective is not overlooked. My noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, my colleague on the Bill, has tabled further probing amendments in the next group of amendments, which begins with Amendment 30, probing the use of the term “proportionality” in relation to the application of the objectives in future joint fisheries statements.
It is not just fisheries authorities that have a role in aquaculture activities in ensuring success. Other public authorities with responsibilities that will have an impact on the industry must play their part, be that regulating standards, carrying out inspections at ports and processing plants or whatever. There is little mention in any guidance on this matter, and perhaps that is something that should also be looked at. There is real concern that other priorities in different localities may take precedence over these national objectives, particularly in relation to the key objectives relating to sustainability and climate change. This is crucial to understanding the main reasons why the UK could make a difference to fisheries and fishing communities now that it is outside the CFP.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for contributing to the short debate on this important subject. I am particularly grateful for Amendment 28, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, which would require public authorities to exercise their functions in a manner to achieve the fisheries objectives.
While I fully support the principle that our public authorities should support the achievement of the fisheries objectives, I believe that the amendment, which would place a blanket duty on all authorities, would not be suitable, as my noble friend Lady Byford so rightly pointed out. For instance, there has been no consultation with local authorities, and the new duty could lead to them having to prioritise fisheries management over the many other responsibilities that they have. A number of noble Lords have commented on those tensions.
The role and function of each public authority is set out in its implementing legislation. Each authority will vary how it exercises its functions on a case-by-case basis, and any local responsibilities to manage the 0-6 nautical mile zone will be delivered through the inshore fisheries conservation authorities. In some circumstances, elements of an authority’s function may not accord with some of the fisheries objectives. It would therefore be impractical for the Fisheries Bill to place a legal duty on such an authority. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay pointed out, the local authorities and public bodies may well not have the power to achieve these objectives legally.
Key fisheries regulators—the Marine Management Organisation and the inshore fisheries conservation authorities—also already have sustainable development duties under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and other noble Lords are reassured by this. Contrary to the intention of the amendment, its effect could also be to dilute the accountability of fisheries administrations, which is clearly established by the Bill, by spreading responsibility for the objectives more broadly across public authorities.
In answer to the specific questions from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the current scope of the functions of the relevant national authorities cover the primary fisheries management tools and activities. We appreciate that local public authorities provide an important role in the achievement of successful fisheries management. However, key activities and functions are covered by the joint fisheries statement, due to their dependency in decision-making on national authorities—for example, in confirming by-laws. The fisheries statement is also legally binding.
Clause 2(1)(c), which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked about, requires a statement on how fisheries objectives have been interpreted and proportionately applied. This will ensure a clear explanation of how the policies in the JFS meet the objectives and how their application is tailored to each specific case. It is worth highlighting that noble Lords will scrutinise the JFS before it comes into effect.
By holding fisheries administrations to account for the policies that they commit to in the statutory statements and management plans that will be created under the Bill, we are providing a strong framework for accountability that also recognises that fisheries authorities cannot unilaterally deliver on all these objectives but must to varying degrees work in partnership with industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, rightly pointed out, fisheries administrations will be accountable for meeting the policies in the JFS, and this could be something that the Office for Environmental Protection chooses to scrutinise.
Clause 10 makes the policies legally binding. Under these objectives, all must to varying degrees work in partnership with industry, stakeholders and international partners in some cases.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his helpful comments. The range of objectives does present a challenge, but Clause 10 makes it clear that the policies are legally binding. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley
I asked a question, but I do not require an answer now. In so far as the Department for International Trade, for example, is engaged in trade negotiations that might impact on fish stocks because of market-access considerations, it will do so by exercising prerogative powers. It does not have duties derived from statute. So it might be interesting to know whether the Government regard these fisheries objectives as relevant to the task that the Department for International Trade will perform.
Lord Teverson
I will make a point very quickly. I was slightly disappointed in the Minister’s response when she said local authorities had not been consulted in any way on this Bill. The IFCAs—which are incredibly important vehicles for the conservation of sea fish within the six-mile limit around our coast—are very much creatures of local government. Some of their members are appointed by the MMO, but they are largely local authority organisations, and are significantly funded by local authorities. I wonder whether a consultation —at least with the LGA—might have been a good thing. So I do feel some disappointment.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
In answer to my noble friend Lord Lansley’s question, it probably would be better if I wrote about the international trade position on these objectives. I said that we have consulted with the inshore fisheries conservation authorities, which would have had their own contacts with local authorities. So while perhaps not directly, they would have been indirectly involved in all these discussions.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
I thank noble Lords for taking part in the debate and, on the whole, for their support of the principles involved, or indeed the accountability of the fisheries authorities. I totally accept that the amendment may have been too loosely drawn up, for which I apologise to the House. The objective was to create a discussion and a response on whether the objectives in Clause 1 are worth more than the paper they are written on. I am not totally sure we received any real assurance on that point, but I will read Hansard and maybe come back to it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the word “proportionately” in relation to the application of the fisheries objectives when formulating the policies and proposals in the joint fisheries statement.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 30 in my name and Amendment 42 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester.
Amendment 30 questions what it means for a joint fisheries statement to interpret and apply the fisheries objectives “proportionately”. This is an issue that we were beginning to flag up in the previous debate. We have removed the word “proportionately” to probe this drafting further. As we know, we have spent considerable time delving into the wording of the fisheries objectives, and we have been very keen to get the wording right so that it can be consistently applied. I do not intend to reopen that discussion again at the moment, but what does it mean to have to apply those objectives only “proportionately”? There seems to be little guidance or restriction on the extent to which fisheries policy authorities should comply with the objectives. There is therefore no reassurance that the policy statements will deliver effective policies to achieve these objectives.
We could end up with different policy authorities putting different weight on their responsibility to deliver, with different timescales and different monitoring procedures. If they apply the objectives “proportionately”, it could mean that other objectives not specified in the Bill could be weighed against those set out here. If we do not get this right at the top level, it will filter down to the fisheries management plans and undermine all the good work in setting meaningful objectives in the first place. All this feels a little unsatisfactory. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said in the previous debate, we remain concerned about the wriggle room in these objectives, and this is another manifestation of that.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. It is always useful to go back to the Government’s own approach to negotiations published in February. In part 2 of the document, headed “Other Agreements”—maybe fisheries did not quite get the profile it should have done in the document—paragraph 3d states:
“The UK is committed to acting as a responsible coastal state and to working closely with the EU and its Member States and other coastal states on the sustainable management of shared stocks in line with our international obligations.”
How could I ever improve on that? It is absolutely on the button.
It is therefore completely in line with government policy that we should put those agreements within the statements. That would make the statements far more comprehensive. This is a good part of the Bill, in that it deals with a lot of the areas that we are concerned about, but there are gaps in two areas. The first is in respect of those agreements that have been reached on adjacent stocks. Let us not forget that something like 80% of UK fish stocks are shared with other EEZs, so it is a positive thing to include that in those lists. Secondly, given the Government’s right focus on complying with international agreements—the Minister has referred to it many times—it would be good to boast and be proud of how we have implemented and complied with those obligations. That is obvious and would be helpful, and I hope the Government would not find it difficult to agree.
On Amendment 34, it seems to me that that part of the Bill is mealy-mouthed. We ought to be able to go beyond sustainability, whereas that clause seems to suggest that sustainability is all that we need to aim for. It may be the way it is phrased, but it is almost as if we need to stop once we have achieved sustainability or MSY. I want to go beyond that to a much more bountiful harvest, if that is possible.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 31 in this grouping because I think it is important that we put in place agreements with other nations who host most of the stock we live on.
When I first heard that a new UK fisheries policy was one of the primary reasons for Brexit, I scoffed, because surely fish do not understand national borders. As we know, they move about and we can never have a fishing policy without close co-operation with our neighbours. But that was before I understood the absurd principles of relative stability and how our total allowable catch was based on fishing records from the mid-1970s, when our large fleet was fishing around Iceland before the cod wars and our inshore fleet kept very few records, and before climate change moved our national dish of cod into northern waters. Did your Lordships know that we are only 8% self-sufficient in cod? Furthermore, we currently consume in the UK three times the total EU quota of cod. We are no longer blessed with being—as I was taught in my childhood—an island built on coal and surrounded by cod. Climate change has changed all that. So, to some extent, our fishing arrangements with Norway, the Faroes, Iceland and even Russia are going to be as important as our fishing arrangements with the EU.
But the problem for the EU fleets is that their catch, like ours, has moved north. Therefore, they catch a lot of their fish in UK waters. The European Fisheries Alliance reckons that cutting them off from our waters would slash profits for the EU fleets in half, leading to job losses for at least 6,000 people. A fish war with the EU, or at least clashes between boats, is not such a remote possibility, which is why the EU Commission has given itself the powers to command any or all EU fishing boats to return to port. They have also allocated funds from the EMFF to compensate fishermen forced to retire due to Brexit.
The EU is also gearing itself up for the possibility of tariffs or other restrictions on the 60% to 70% of the UK catch that is currently exported to Europe. I have often thought that one of the best ways we could spend the replacement for European Maritime and Fisheries Fund money would be to have a massive marketing campaign to stop us eating so much cod and persuade the great British public to eat more of the fish we produce. Sadly, I suspect that the great British public could not afford to do that, even if they were so inclined.
We all hope that it will not come to clashes at sea, but the point of this amendment is to prevent future clashes with our neighbours while at the same time ensuring that we use the best up-to-date science to sustain our fishing stocks. Zonal allocation is a far better way of distributing quota among national fishing fleets than the historically based quotas. The seas are always changing, and so are the fish within them; this amendment is an effort to take account of that fact.
However, the problem is that looking at relative stability terrifies the Europeans—opening up a whole can of worms for them, from the Black Sea to the Baltic —even if they know in their hearts that it is the right thing to do. We have to enter into very serious negotiations with not only them but our other fishing neighbours in order to achieve sustainable fisheries.
Lord Krebs
My Lords, a few years ago I had the great pleasure of serving on the Energy and Environment Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee, under the very able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. In our inquiry into Brexit and fisheries, we heard very compelling evidence about the management of shared stocks and nobody, from the fishing industry to private fishermen to the Minister at the time—now the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—disagreed that any policy for the management of UK stocks has to take into account the fact that many of our stocks are shared with other European countries and, therefore, we cannot develop plans on our own.
For me, one of the more compelling anecdotes was the case of species that spend the earlier part of their life in, for example, French waters, and later move into UK waters. One could envisage a future situation in which, in this case, the French might say, “Okay, we will harvest the younger fish and leave the older ones for you.” Of course, there would not be any older ones. I just emphasise that all the evidence I heard in that Select Committee inquiry three years ago makes a very compelling case for this amendment on shared stocks.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, for this debate. This provides me with the opportunity to explain a little more about why we have drafted the provisions and proposals for the joint fisheries statement as we have done, and why this clause has been written with a requirement that proportionality is considered when formulating the policies and proposals in the joint fisheries statement.
The requirement for proportionality, which Amendment 30 would remove, is because the fisheries objectives work together to set out the core principles that should be followed to achieve a successful and sustainable fisheries management regime, with the joint fisheries statement setting out the policies that will contribute to achieving our objectives. These policies will focus on key areas of our fisheries management, both to protect the environment and enable a thriving fishing industry. We will achieve this ambition only if the fisheries objectives are proportionately applied to the policies in the joint statement. A requirement for proportionality was included to provide reassurance that the fisheries administrations will take a balanced approach in the development of policies and proposals. The joint fisheries statement on proportionality will be scrutinised as part of the consultation and the legislative scrutiny process so that if there were any concerns that needed to be raised, they would be raised prior to the statement’s adoption.
Amendments 31 and 32 both relate to our intentions in the international sphere. Amendment 31 would require us to set out how we will co-operate with our regional neighbours in managing shared fish stocks. This is clearly an extremely important consideration in fisheries management. However, the UK is already bound by international law, as I know noble Lords know, to co-operate with other coastal states on the management of shared stocks; for example, through the UN fish stocks agreement—UNSFA—which establishes a comprehensive regime for the management of such transboundary fish stocks.
We are taking the necessary steps to build the active role we need to play internationally as an independent coastal state that takes its rights and responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea—UNCLOS—very seriously. For example, we will participate as a sovereign nation in negotiations on mackerel stocks and are joining several priority regional fisheries management organisations in our own right. We are keen to develop new framework agreements with our neighbouring coastal states for annual co-operation on fisheries of shared interest. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, was absolutely right to refer to scientists: of course, we have some world-class fisheries scientists and scientific institutions in this country, and fully intend to continue to play a leading role in the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this issue, and the Minister for his response. We are flogging the same issue of proportionality over and again with different wording. I was not totally convinced by the Minister’s response. He talked about the need for a balanced approach between all the different objectives. We have already rehearsed the fact that that could lead to an unbalanced approach if we are not very careful, or the wrong objectives coming to the top in the hierarchy, so I am slightly anxious about that. I took it from the Minister’s reply that it would not be appropriate for other objectives that were not already listed to be put in that balance. If that is what he was saying, it is certainly reassuring.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made a very compelling case on the international issues and I am not sure that the Minister managed to unravel it, particularly on the first amendment. There will be a need for us to carry on co-operating with our international neighbours, so I do not see what would be wrong in putting that in the joint fisheries statement alongside all the other tasks that have to be carried out. It is not a minor issue: it will be a major part of the authorities’ functions. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will reflect on that because I think it is worth further discussion. It may be in a slightly different form of words, but that balance—
Lord Teverson
I assure the noble Baroness that, in the next group, I will very much take hold of that issue.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
We are rehearsing and repeating some of these debates, but that was very reassuring to hear, and I am glad the noble Lord has taken that on board.
The Minister’s point that we will report after the event, rather than be forward-looking, was well made and we need to reflect on it. I was a bit disappointed by his answer on recreational fishing. It is not just about funding or having access to financial assistance but more about the importance of recreational fishing. As I said to the Minister—and he reflected it back to me—it is a major part of the fishing sector, not a minor part. It employs more people and involves more money and jobs, so to say that the joint fisheries statement should not explicitly take account of that does not feel right to me. Again, we may not have put the amendment in the right place, but I think we can firm it up in some way. I will reflect on his comments in Hansard. It may be another one of those issues that will crop up somewhere else during the course of the Bill. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(a) restore one or more stocks of sea fish to, or maintain them at, sustainable levels, and(b) in respect of fish activities for the one or more stocks of sea fish referred to in paragraph (a), achieve the ecosystem objective.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the ecosystem objective to be achieved whenever policies to maintain or restore a particular fish stock are set out.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has just pointed out, we seem to be repeating ourselves because we are going around in circles. As I said the other day, if you do not have environmental sustainability, you do not have social or economic sustainability. The Minister is not hearing that, or certainly not agreeing with it, and nor are his advisers. They just do not seem to get the basic premise that if you do not have a healthy planet, you do not have anything else. You cannot make deals with nature. Nature can heal itself, but not with all our interventions. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, has pointed out that we are essentially the voices of the environment here because there are no huge and powerful pressure groups supporting it.
I am also going to have to repeat the fact that the Conservative Party manifesto made a commitment to the people of Britain who voted for the Conservatives that there would be a legal commitment to fish sustainably, so it should be in this Bill. It is no good saying that it is in other places; it has to be in this Bill because only then will people understand that it is an incredibly important component of the whole fishing industry. Ecosystems are part of that sustainability and it all has to work together holistically. At the moment, the mechanisms in the Bill are quite disjointed and have to be tidied up, and presumably an awful lot of Members of this House would be very happy to contribute to that.
Amendment 33 aims to ensure that the fisheries management plans are made in the context of the ecology that they will affect. It is impossible to change the dynamics of one species without creating a whole load of repercussions, possibly unknown ones, within the ecosystem. More predators might lead to fewer prey, for example, while more prey might lead to more predators. Sometimes, the best interventions might be farther down the food chain, such as increasing the population of microscopic plankton which will then support higher populations all the way up the chain. The fisheries management plans would better be regarded as being ecosystem management plans and should be made with the purpose of achieving the ecosystem objective. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I should tell the Committee that if Amendment 33 were to be agreed to, I would not be able to call Amendment 34 on the grounds of pre-emption.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment 49A in this group, which would insert the words
“having regard to the precautionary criteria for stock biomass.”
I am wedded to the idea of the importance of a fisheries management plan to embellish what is set out in Clause 2 on the joint fisheries statement. My noble friend has spoken at some length elsewhere about the importance to the UK of mixed fishery issues, but my reading of Clause 6 is that we are focusing on a single stock-by-stock basis. However, a number of noble Lords have said that the current cause of overcatch is quota catch and excess bycatch. Does my noble friend not agree that the current drafting misses an opportunity to specify multi-species plans by area, with proposals for how to address mixed fisheries with quotas? If there is a reason for that, perhaps he will explain it. I understand that the Faroe Islanders have tried to control their fisheries through quotas, but it has not gone entirely well.
Clause 6(2)(c) seeks to use indicators, but the objectives do not refer to the precautionary criteria, which is why I would like to take this opportunity to stress that those criteria are important to the drafting of fisheries management plans. The reason is twofold. One is, as my noble friend has stated, that we need the scientific evidence to be specific and required to do much more than just assessing maximum sustainable yield and to work within the context of the fisheries management plan. The science will need to be sufficient to monitor the status against indicators and to inform with sufficient accuracy catch options required by the Secretary of State in order to set quotas. That, I presume, is the purpose of what a management plan should be: to identify this, not just the ability of assessing maximum sustainable yield. It goes to the Minister’s earlier comments about why it is important to have the most accurate data and science available.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
My Lords, I speak to my Amendments 45, 49, 50, 53, 54 and 55, all of which are aimed at making a good thing better. We agree that fisheries management plans are a good thing, but they are a bit of a moveable feast as currently structured in this Bill. They are optional; there are a range of circumstances in which authorities can simply opt out of plans and out of the joint statements placed around the plans. These amendments focus on the need for plans to be obligatory—to have timescales associated with them and to have more teeth if they are to deliver in practice the Government’s manifesto commitment to introduce a legal commitment to fish sustainably.
These amendments are aimed at plugging a number of gaps that could mean that the authorities could opt out of preparing fisheries plans at all for some stocks. These amendments taken together introduce provisions to ensure that fisheries management plans must be introduced for all commercially exploited stocks and any other stocks that fall below sustainable levels. They also introduce timeframes for preparing and publishing fisheries management plans. The Bill says that authorities are to prepare a statement explaining the use that
“the authorities … propose to make of fisheries management plans”
and what fisheries management plans they
“propose to prepare and publish”,
together with their reasons for deciding not to introduce a fisheries management plan for a particular stock. There is a rather perverse phraseology in the Bill, which seems to imply that finding an excuse for not having a fisheries management plan is pretty legit. We need to turn it around and set out a very clear requirement for a fisheries management plan to be prepared in the circumstances that I just described. Indeed, with the way the Bill is drafted, we could have a situation where a stock in a depleted state would not be subject to a fisheries management plan. That seems perverse.
I go back to a point that has been made several times—that what we are trying to achieve with the Bill is effectiveness, because ineffective fisheries management plans, for example, would be bad for fish stocks, and that would be bad for the fishing industry as well as bad for the fish.
To take my amendments in turn, Amendment 45 would remove the discretion over whether authorities have to produce a plan. Instead, it states that
“authorities must prepare and publish fisheries management plans for all commercially exploited stocks … and … other stocks … that fall below”
sustainable levels. It is absolutely vital to introduce this accountability into the Bill. Far too many of our stocks are still overfished through setting fishing limits above sustainable levels year on year. It is vital that the Bill reverse that through the introduction of effective fishery plans for all stocks currently below sustainable levels. It is also important that we have plans for all commercially exploited stocks, even if they are currently fished at sustainable levels. Those plans need to be in place to ensure stock levels remain at or above sustainable levels.
Amendment 49 would ensure that fisheries management plans actually maintain stocks at or restore them to the sustainable level, rather than merely “contributing” to the stocks’ restoration. Amendment 50 would ensure that authorities are required to establish policies that will return data-deficient stocks to an equivalent proxy of maximum sustainable yield, rather than just having a vague commitment to increase stock levels without specifying any limit.
Amendment 53 would introduce additional requirements for fisheries management plans introduced for stocks that fall below sustainable levels, defined as BLIM. In particular, it would introduce timelines for restoring stocks that have not been fished sustainably. It would introduce catch limits and conservation measures to increase or return the biomass of each stock to sustainable levels within 10 years. It would also require authorities to prepare and publish a fisheries management plan within 12 months of a stock falling below sustainable levels.
If we do not introduce timelines for recovering stocks we could see many more stocks depleted, possibly beyond levels from which they can recover. The Minister talked about 59% of our stocks being fished at sustainable levels, but that figure is actually going down rather than up: in 2018, 69% of our stocks were being fished at or below sustainable levels. We still have a long way to go, so it is important that these timelines are included so that authorities can be held to account if they do not achieve them. It would be bizarre to abandon the common fisheries policy’s target, which requires all stocks to be fished at or below MSY by 2020. I know that it is unfashionable to hark back to the common fisheries policy, but it was right to have that clear target. In a wider ecosystem context, the marine strategy review found that we were failing 11 out of 15 marine indicators, one of which was fishing.
Amendment 54 would ensure that where stocks are shared with another coastal state, the Secretary of State must engage with that state to try to put in place a joint fisheries management plan for shared stocks. This is pretty key, given that the UK shares more than 100 stocks with the European Union alone.
Amendment 55 would simply define BLIM as the reference point at which additional measures need to be introduced to fisheries management plans to ensure stocks are returned to sustainable levels. If fish stocks fall below this level, their ability to reproduce might be reduced and stocks might be in serious danger of collapse. This is the measure used by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which provides annual scientific advice on and assessment of the state of fish stocks used by authorities when making decisions about catch limits.
I know the Minister will tell me that there will be guidance on fisheries management plans, but many of these issues are so important that they should be in the Bill rather than simply in guidance. Although the flexibility that the Bill currently allows on fisheries management plans might be admirable in some respects, it raises another question about the whole issue of consistency. If our fisheries and access to them becomes a material matter in negotiations with the European Union and other states on a variety of trade and international relations issues, the fact that we could be widely—perhaps even wildly—divergent across the four nations must raise interesting questions for the Secretary of State.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 34 and other amendments in this group that relate to sustainable fish levels being included in the fisheries management plans. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, we are going around in circles—perhaps like some fish.
Fisheries management plans are key to the Bill’s implementation and success, but they will be ineffective if fish stocks are not maintained at or above sustainable levels. The Bill’s thrust is to promote sustainable fisheries management—that is how I have interpreted it, anyway. This aim in endorsed and welcomed by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations. The UK is already well ahead in sustainable fisheries management and has much to build on to become a world leader. For the fishing industry to maintain its current position and go from strength to strength, it is vital that fish stocks are preserved, enhanced and sustainable. It would be unacceptable to promote short-term gain at the expense of fish stocks for future generations.
Decisions on fisheries management must be informed by science, data and information gathering. We welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring this happens and to an “ecosystem-based approach” to fisheries. This should minimise any harmful effects on fishing activities within the broader environmental, social and economic context. It is therefore essential to manage fish stocks, not only to maintain them at a sustainable level, but to go beyond that. As is clear, climate change can have a dramatic effect on water levels and temperatures. It is paramount that fish stocks are truly sustainable and can adapt to changes over time. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that this happens.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment 54, which is to do with shared stocks. The UK Government share the Irish Sea with the Irish Government. An agreement is already in place in legislation called the voisinage agreement, which is like a shared fisheries management plan. I am seeking reassurance that that will remain in place and that the alleged regulatory border in the Irish Sea, as a result of EU management issues, will not impact on fishing efforts in the Irish Sea.
Lord Krebs
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I have to confess that it raised in my mind a thought I had not had before, and I thank her very much for it. Her amendment reflects the fact that in certain circumstances, the removal of one species from an ecological community can have a dramatic effect on the whole ecosystem. I used to teach this notion to undergraduates in Oxford. It refers in particular to the idea of a keystone species—one that might have a disproportionate effect on the balance of an ecological community as a whole. In a quite unanticipated way, fishing effort on a particular target species might disrupt and radically transform the whole ecosystem. The noble Baroness’s amendment suggests that the ecosystem objective should be built into consideration of fishing effort. Of course, we saw the ecosystem objective at the very beginning of Clause 1, which is one of the objectives that form the pillars of the Bill. Does the Minister or his officials have a clear view about the notion of keystone species and unintended disruptions to the whole marine ecosystem that might arise as a consequence of a fishing effort targeted at a particular species?
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 34. It is obvious that setting quotas at MSY is a largely short-term approach. I realise that it is incredibly complicated, particularly for mixed fisheries—the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, just introduced me to a new complication—but the point is that MSY tends to be set to allow for some harvest or return from whatever level the stocks reached, unless, of course, the scientists think that they are getting close to the point of no return or BLIM. Many conservation biologists think that MSY is dangerous and can be misused. If possible, stocks should be set above sustainable levels, so that we are not always living from hand to mouth and our children’s children have a truly sustainable fishing future ahead of them.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 34. As has been said, it is crucial that there is something on the face of this Bill making clear our serious intention to allow our stocks to recover. I fear that with all ecological assessments there is a danger that we become immune, that the steady decline becomes the new normal as we become more and more used to empty seas, the lack of birds in our hedgerows and the lack of wildlife in general, and that we simply adjust down our expectations to this new normal. We simply cannot do that.
The wonderful thing about fisheries is that if you take the pressure off them, they rebound. Fish are one of the most resilient of wildlife species. We must allow ourselves to take that pressure off. We have had decades of overfishing, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, we saw a 10% decrease in one year in the number of stocks that are at sustainable levels. That tells us that there is something deeply wrong. It is fine to say that 59% of stocks are better than they were a decade ago, but that is 10% fewer than the year before. So we must give ourselves the opportunity. We do not want to be subject to legal challenge. If we believe that we must take a management approach that will set stocks at well below the sustainable limit, we must be allowed to do so. They can then recover quickly and everyone can benefit, including the fishers.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I was going to speak further to Amendment 34, but the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have said it far better, so I shall resume my place.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 48 in my name, but I also echo the arguments made by other noble Lords. Our amendment seeks to achieve a very similar objective to many others in the group: to maintain stocks of sea fish at or above sustainable levels. We are all, in our different ways, seeking to clarify and firm up the wording which would achieve that. As with some of the other debates, we believe that this is a core principle that should lie at the heart of the Bill.
The objectives set out at the front of the Bill emphasise the importance of sustainability, but this means nothing unless we use the Bill to tackle the scourge of overfishing and bring fish stocks back up to sustainable levels. Of course, as we have discussed before, we recognise that this is not just a UK problem but a global problem. Globally, 29% of stocks are overfished, many of them illegally, or they are unregulated. The Blue Marine Foundation has said that, if these trends continue, the world’s seafoods will collapse by 2048.
This is an opportunity for us to play a leading role globally in addressing this crisis. However, we will only have respect and influence if we are seen to be putting our own house in order. Coming out of the common fisheries policy is an ideal time for us to show leadership on this. Taking more control of UK waters provides a rare opportunity to revisit the scientific data, make a baseline stock assessment, create space for stocks to replenish and reset the dial on how much fishing should be allowed to achieve long-term sustainability. That is why we want to see a requirement not to fish above sustainability levels as a guiding principle running through this Bill.
This should apply equally to UK fishers and foreign vessels given a licence to fish in our waters. Amendment 48 would require fisheries management plans not just to contribute to the restoration of stock levels up to sustainable levels but to go further, by restoring the stock and creating a long-term reserve, so that we can begin to repair the damage that has already been done.
Of course, we recognise that much of the fishing allocation around our shores will continue to be determined through negotiation with our European neighbours, but they have already signed up to the principle of maximum sustainable yield through the common fisheries policy, so they cannot really object if we take a more robust stand on this issue than the negotiations around the CFP have so far delivered.
As we have discussed, we will in due course have new opportunities to fish in UK waters, and this is an area where we could make the most progress. This will be under our direct control, so the benefits can be shared between the recovering fish stocks and the UK fishers who understand that it is in their interest to let those stocks regenerate.
I hope that the Minister will recognise the sense of these arguments and seek ways to incorporate the principles into the Bill.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this very interesting debate relating to the Bill’s new provisions for the UK Government and, where appropriate, the devolved Administrations, to publish fisheries management plans. These plans will set out the action that we will take to get stocks to sustainable levels. Where we cannot make such an assessment, we will gather scientific data so that such an assessment is possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, knows how fond I am of her. The sustainability objective is the first objective of this Bill. I am starting to take exception to the questioning of the bona fides of the Government, who have worked with the devolved Administrations to bring this forward. This Bill is absolutely predicated on sustainable fishing for the future, and we will not be doing our fishing community any good if we overfish and do not have good custodianship of our waters. That is the whole basis of this work, and the legally binding nature of the statement and the fisheries plan. When I hear noble Lords talking as if this Government were being negligent about sustainability and the importance of sustainability to the whole basis of this work, I will go round in circles and re-explain why these objectives are part of a balance which we have agreed with the devolved Administrations.
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling Amendment 33. I recognise her clear intention to ensure that fisheries management plans make a vital contribution to enhancing the protection of the marine environment. I firmly believe that the clauses as drafted in this Bill will support a holistic, ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, will not be embarrassed by me highlighting what she said: that this country is well ahead. It is recognised as one of the leaders. Obviously, we want to be doing even better than everyone else, but it is important to reflect on the bona fides of all Administrations to get this right and to have a vibrant fishing fleet.
The joint fisheries statement requires the Administrations to explain how fisheries management plans will contribute to the fisheries objectives, including the ecosystem objective. The four fisheries administrations are also bound by our wider body of marine legislation, including the provisions in the Marine Strategy Regulations, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations and the Marine and Coastal Access Act. The fisheries management plans will make an appropriate contribution to delivering these broader obligations, and I am confident that these plans will deliver the environmental improvement that the noble Baroness, and all noble Lords, are rightly seeking.
In relation to Amendments 34 and 48, the clause already requires fisheries administrations to set out policies to manage stocks in such a way as to restore them and grow them over time. I agree that in some circumstances it may be necessary or desirable to fish some stocks below maximum sustainable yield for conservation purposes. This could be to ensure that all stocks in a mixed fishery can be managed sustainably, for instance. The clause already allows this. To refer specifically to the second part of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, we already have spatial measures to protect key areas of the sea to allow recovery, and fishing stocks at levels no greater than their maximum sustainable level will, by default, leave a proportion of the stock to allow regeneration. The UK Government are also committed to supporting our fishers. It is therefore important that fishing activities are managed to achieve economic, social and employment benefits, as well as contributing to the availability of food supplies.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, tabled a series of important amendments on the topic of the health of stocks, measured by BLIM. This is the scientific term for the limit reference point for all the mature fish in a particular stock. Amendment 55 from the noble Baroness would add a definition of BLIM to the Bill. This amendment cannot be considered in isolation as it links with other amendments that aim to introduce provisions to manage stocks to levels above BLIM elsewhere in the Bill—so I will address it first.
The proposed definition of BLIM—I have to say that I am not an expert on this, so this is what I am advised—is not the same as that used by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, ICES, the body which provides scientific advice on many of the fish stocks in the North Atlantic. ICES defines BLIM as:
“A deterministic biomass limit below which a stock is considered to have reduced reproductive capacity.”
Introducing a different definition in law could inadvertently create issues with interpreting and applying ICES’s advice in future. I am very happy to have a discussion with the noble Baroness, if that would help, because I am afraid it is out of my area of expertise and it might be interesting.
Returning to Amendment 45, there are many factors that can affect the biomass of a fish stock, and fisheries management plans will have to take them into account. Commercial fishing is by no means the only pressure on fish-stock biomass, although I acknowledge that it often is the most significant. Of course, a priority of the fisheries administrations will be to recover fish stocks to healthy levels of biomass, and this will be a key purpose of fisheries management plans. Fisheries administrations will produce fisheries management plans irrespective of whether the stock is overfished, because stocks currently fished at sustainable levels must also be managed attentively to ensure that they maintain their biomass status.
This amendment would restrict authorities to creating fisheries management plans only for commercially exploited stocks and those below BLIM, which would not be the best outcome for all stocks found in UK waters. This amendment may also inadvertently mean that we would be unable to manage some stocks. For instance, there are data-poor stocks where it is not possible to set a BLIM level. This includes certain stocks of lemon sole, ray, dogfish and boarfish. The Bill’s objectives already seek to provide that the health of stocks is restored and maintained and, in particular, the stocks below BLIM would be covered by the precautionary objective. This means that the amendment is not required to achieve its desired purpose and would instead create an inappropriate restriction in the remit of authorities to create fisheries management plans.
Amendments 49 and 49A allow me to set out the important matter of how policies support the achievement of the objectives. The clause in question places a duty on fisheries authorities to set up policies to restore and maintain a stock to sustainable levels, or contribute to these aims, when there is sufficient scientific evidence to do so. These amendments would delete the section on contributing to these aims, which would mean that the policies would have to restore or maintain a stock immediately to sustainable levels, which may not be possible. Furthermore, Amendment 49A adds an unnecessary requirement to meet unspecified criteria on taking a precautionary approach, as plans will already have to be compatible with the precautionary approach.
I say also to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that fisheries management plans can include details of the type of stock, the type of fishing and the geographical area to which they relate. Each plan could therefore cover multiple stocks in a geographical area. Clause 2(5) makes it clear that fisheries management plans set out policies for “one or more stocks”. I assure the noble Baroness that the wording on “contributing” does not remove the duty for authorities to restore and protect stocks.
To give an example of a policy that would contribute to a stock’s sustainability, if a fisheries management plan covers a fishery that targets only part of a stock, the policies set out within that plan cannot achieve sustainability for the whole stock. The devolution settlement allows for the different fisheries administrations in the UK to produce their own plans that contribute to a stock’s management, and the clause reflects this. The proposed amendments would run contrary to the devolution settlement. The same applies for stocks shared with other countries, where our policies, no matter how effective, can go only so far as to contribute to the restoration or protection of stocks.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
I thank the Minister for his offer to meet to talk about management plans, and I would very much like to take that up. Perhaps before that meeting he might ponder on whether something can be inserted into the Bill. I am trying to be kind here and am choosing my words very carefully. I absolutely do not doubt his commitment, at a UK level, to the intent of the Bill and to the sustainability issue being entirely at the forefront. However, devolution is quite a long arm and I suspect that there will be occasions when one or more of the devolved fishing authorities have other priorities in mind. I would be searching for something much more specific about what fisheries management plans there need to be. The provisions of Clause 7 allow a little bit of coming and going at a devolved level and could mean that very significant stocks do not have plans applied to them. I would very much like to explore the ability to plug that hole.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
We might perhaps incorporate that if there is a more general desire to talk through fisheries plans. The truth is that the four fisheries administrations have worked very constructively and positively, with sustainability at the heart of that work. We have all been saying that there is no point in overextracting or overexploiting fish stocks anywhere in UK waters. We need to work on restoring all our stocks, and that is absolutely what these plans are designed to do. I shall of course be very happy to have further discussions on that.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, almost all of whom probably have much more competence in this area than I do. I thank the noble Lord for his answer. He was quite fierce towards me—in fact, that is probably the grumpiest I have ever seen him—and I consider myself told off. I did not mean to doubt his integrity but I am afraid that I cannot say the same for the Prime Minister. It is very dispiriting to be on this side of the Chamber, to put a lot of work into legislation, to come forward with what we think are good suggestions to make it a better piece of legislation and then to have them all swept aside simply because the Government have a large majority. The Minister must see that that is quite difficult to swallow at times.
I thank the Minister for giving an answer that he felt to be very reassuring. I will read it to see how much I am reassured by it and, in view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teverson
“( ) The fisheries policy authorities must whenever possible draw up fisheries management plans that are agreed with all those non-UK authorities that share those stocks.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires management plans to take account of the fact that fish migrate across boundaries.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 46. I was surprised that the Minister seemed to give the impression that we were saying that the British fishing industry or this sector had a bad reputation, or that we were somehow denying that it was trying to obtain sustainability. I do not think that anybody in the Chamber has said that at all. However, that provides a good introduction to this amendment.
One of the things that the UK did, as part of the European Union, was to help reform the common fisheries policy quite successfully in all sorts of ways. The landing obligation was one of those reforms, which I am delighted the Government are still pursuing post Brexit, and so was the issue of regionalisation—an area of fisheries management that the UK always pursued in the Council of Ministers. In the last major reform of the common fisheries policy, we achieved regionalisation to a large degree.
Why did we do that? Why was that important? Well, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to, a large proportion of our commercial, and indeed other, species are not confined to the UK EEZ. As he said, spawning grounds, for instance, are more likely and more often to be found elsewhere rather than in our exclusive economic zone. What that means—and this is stark-staringly obvious—is that we have to continue co-operation to manage these stocks because, if we do not, it will not work.
A key difficulty with this Bill for me is that, to a degree, it asks for three fictions—or three novels—in the form of the two documents on sustainable fisheries, which we will continue to talk about, and also, particularly, the fisheries management plans. I welcome the Minister’s offer to talk about those, because I do not think the Bill is very clear about what these plans are trying to do. However, one thing that I am sure about is that the fisheries management plans need to take into account the total circulation of the fish, or other marine animals, in the areas that we are trying to manage. If we do not do that, the plans are a waste of time; they are just not going to work.
This amendment says that there has to be an obligation—of course, all our international obligations are general rather than specific, so they would not work sufficiently in terms of the detail that I would see in the management plans—to do our best, or a best endeavours obligation on the fishing authorities, to come to agreement with other non-UK authorities that are in charge of those fish stocks that are within that management plan, so that we have a holistic plan for the range of those stocks. I cannot think why we could not do that, but I do not believe that the international obligations are specific enough for there to be a need to do that at management plan level. There is a general obligation; it is not a specific obligation.
That is why my amendment proposes that fisheries authorities, in bringing those management plans together, have to try to reach agreement with other coastal states or member states of the European Union. It is not compulsory—clearly, agreement might not be reached—but, equally clearly, those others will want that same result. This will not be part of the Brexit negotiations, so it is not around high negotiation; it is around practical effect, once we are out of the common fisheries policy and we are into our future relation. There is not some great negotiation point here; it is a matter of trying to achieve all the goals in those objectives, all of which will be largely impossible to achieve if we do not have management plans that co-ordinate with those of adjacent coastal states.
That seems to me to be a complete and clear proposition—one that not just biologists but anyone who has been involved in this area would recognise—and I hope that the Minister will find a way of getting this aspect into the Bill. I say once again that, without this aspect, we are looking at a Bill that talks about management plans that become a fiction. I beg to move.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 57 and 58, which were put down by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
The premise I start from is that conservation and sustainability are essential if we want to conserve all kinds of fish for the good of our planet and as a legacy that we can be proud of for the future generations who will inhabit it. To achieve such success for the future, we need both clear, co-ordinated objectives and detailed management plans working in concert. The changes proposed will improve the coherence between the objectives contained in the detailed management plans. These plans will have to include an explanation of how the overarching objectives of sustainability and marine conservation have been interpreted and applied.
I ask the Minister to give more details on the operation of these new management plans and how they will co-exist alongside other co-management initiatives, which already exist in the industry. For example, the shellfish advisory group is engaged in such an arrangement, and this can be built upon.
We also believe that, within six months after the passing of this Bill, the Secretary of State should issue a consultation on the design and creation of these management plans. Can the Minister tell us a little more about the Government’s long-term vision for the future of this very special industry?
On the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—who, if I may say so, was an excellent chairman of the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, on which I was privileged to serve—I believe what he said is essentially right, in that every interest should look at this issue with a considerable sense of realism. In his speech, he pointed the way to a meeting of minds, which I believe and hope very much will come into existence. Surely, it should not be beyond the wit of humankind to come to a meeting of minds on this subject.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lord, perhaps it is as well that I should speak to my amendments, in view of the fact that my noble friend has done it already. These amendments are an attempt to deal with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, referred to earlier.
Amendments 57 and 58 which I have put forward—my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has also signed up to the first one—would require the fisheries management plans to explain how they are implementing, or taking account of, the objectives in a way that we can understand. I think that that is a reasonable obligation. It is not a legal obligation in quite the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was talking of in the earlier amendment, but I think that these objectives are intended to form part of the structure of the management plans. Therefore, the test is whether, on a proper examination of the management plans, we can see how these objectives have been implemented.
Amendment 58 would require the Secretary of State to set out procedures for arriving at these management plans, including consultation on how this should happen. He would then be able to go forward with a procedure which will implement the objectives within the management plan.
My other amendment in this group, Amendment 125A, would require the Secretary of State to make a statement about the economic benefits of this system to the United Kingdom in pursuance of the national benefits objective. Management under that objective requires social and economic benefits. I venture to think that it would be right for the Secretary of State to apply his mind in time, just at the end of the first year, to explain how he hopes to achieve economic benefits as a result of the arrangements made under this Bill for fishing in United Kingdom waters.
I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said about the need for co-operation with other authorities that have responsibility for stocks which we share with them, for the obvious reason that, unless there is such co-operation, there is no real management of the whole stock. As the noble Lord said, it is absolute common sense to do that. It is not quite a matter for the negotiations over Brexit; it is about practical arrangements for ascertaining what is required in respect of these stocks.
Coming back to a point that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made earlier about equal access arrangements, as I understand the Bill, the equal access arrangements are about the actual movement of fishing boats. The quota system controls the catch. If one looks at what the Bill says about equal access, it is pretty plain that, for example, you are not tied to your home port; you can go somewhere else. If you think that there is a better bargain in Peterhead than in Grimsby, you can go there. Conversely, of course, if you fish in Scotland and think there is a better bargain in the south, you can go there, but you cannot drop your line to bring fish out of the water as you go through English waters if you do not have a quota for that. If you are licensed for Scotland, you have to exercise your quota rights there. That is the way that I have understood it. I may be completely wrong, but it looks to me as though that is the way the Bill is framed. That goes back to a previous discussion.
So far as my amendments are concerned, they are intended to incorporate the objectives into the plan in a way that anybody can reasonably understand. That obligation would be a practical obligation in respect of these objectives. We cannot expect any authority to implement all of them; it will depend a bit on the nature of the arrangements. Incorporating them in a way that is explicable and explained in the management plans is the way forward. I would like to know in due course what the Government think about these amendments.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 51 and 52, which are about data-deficient stocks. I was very pleased to hear the Minister say earlier that there is a real commitment to know more about stocks in order to improve them. Amendment 51 strengthens the drafting of the Bill to ensure that authorities “will” take steps to obtain the scientific advice and data necessary to enable an assessment of a stock’s maximum sustainable yield. This would replace the rather loose drafting in the Bill at the moment, which says that authorities will specify the steps, “if any”, that they propose to take. That seems to imply that they may choose to remain deficient in data. It would be an improvement to lay that stronger requirement.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 61 and 71 in my name, as well as to speak in support of other amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Krebs, for adding their names to Amendment 61. While it adds merely one word to the Bill, it makes an important distinction that science and scientific evidence must be good and up to date.
At present, as my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch will outline in relation to some later amendments, Clause 7 provides for fisheries management plans to be amended in the event of “relevant” changes in circumstances. These include changes to scientific evidence. Earlier in the Bill, there is a reference to drawing on the “best available” scientific evidence. The objective in question states that the management of fish and aquaculture activities should be based on this best evidence.
I am sure that the Clause 7 provisions do not intend to allow for any change in scientific evidence to be used as a justification for changing the ways in which fishing activities are managed. Peer review reports are a key aspect in coming to conclusions in scientific matters. Given that, sadly, we live in a world where a small minority of scientists still deny many aspects of the nature of climate change and other generally accepted problems, it seems curious that we should leave open the risk that a minority of scientific opinion could justify watering down important sustainability provisions. It is an important distinction to make sure that this safeguard is added in Clause 7.
Amendment 71 is a probing amendment relating to the issue of transitional provision as the UK becomes an independent coastal state. The amendment makes it clear that fisheries policy authorities must consult with one another in drawing up management plans. Clause 9 of the Bill makes it clear that interim fisheries management plans can be adopted prior to the full versions being published under Clause 2. This makes a great deal of sense in relation to authorities acting alone, which could lead to the adoption of contradictory —or, at least, not entirely complementary—interim measures. There should be some requirement for the policy authorities to discuss interim measures with each other. We need to be satisfied that joined-up policy-making remains a priority even during any transitional spells.
Of the other amendments in the group, Amendment 35, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, supplemented by his Amendment 46, makes common sense in saying that international co-operation should be achieved, as far as possible, in management plans.
My noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone tabled Amendments 51 and 52, which seek to strengthen the emphasis on pursuing sustainability in policies and actions, especially with deficient stock, by seeking scientific evidence. It is important that such evidence must support management plans.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, tabled Amendments 57 and 58, which would require management plans to include a statement setting out how the overarching objectives have been interpreted and applied, and consultation on the design of the plans themselves. Those two amendments probe the element of consultation that must be undertaken by the relevant authorities, and how far consultation on these arrangements needs specifying in the Bill. I might say that those requirements could be added in relation to many, if not all, of the other objectives to which management plans need to have regard.
I also thank the noble and learned Lord for tabling Amendment 125A, which would introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to provide more information on the realisation of economic benefits stemming from the new fisheries approach. The extra information that he requires could only help achieve greater degrees of success.
All these amendments raise valid points, and there is a common theme: we do not know nearly enough about the Government’s plans at this stage, which should be a concern to all noble Lords. At this point I thank the Minister for his offer to explore the workings of management plans in greater detail before Report. That would be very productive.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I thank all noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group. Amendments 35 and 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, address our engagement with other coastal states in relation to fisheries management plans. As noble Lords know—we are going around in circles a bit—many of the fish stocks that are important to the UK industry are shared with our regional neighbours, inhabiting both UK and non-UK waters.
I fully support the intention behind the amendment, which is to ensure that we co-operate closely with our regional neighbours in the management of those shared stocks to ensure their sustainable management. Indeed, as I have said before, as a responsible independent coastal state, we of course seek to do that, both as members of the relevant regional fisheries management organisations and in line with our international obligations under UNCLOS. Indeed, we will seek international agreement on the management of shared stocks, and fisheries management plans could be a vehicle for delivering some aspects of those agreements in UK waters. But fisheries management plans are not just about agreeing quota; they are about managing the wider ecosystem impacts of fishing.
I am advised that the amendment is incompatible with the devolution settlements. In respecting the fact that most fisheries management is devolved, the Bill provides that individual fisheries administrations may produce fisheries management plans. However, as noble Lords know, and as I have said before, international negotiations are a reserved matter. Therefore, in practice, if this amendment were to become law it could restrict the devolved Administrations from implementing management measures in their own waters pending any international agreement, which would necessarily be led by the UK Government.
The UK is committed to continuing co-operation with other coastal states for the sustainable management of shared stocks. Were we to enter into joint regional arrangements for shared stocks, these would be set out in international agreements—although, as I have highlighted, any management aspects relating to the stocks that swim in our waters could be implemented through the fisheries management plans.
Amendments 51 and 52 are designed to ensure that all stocks within the fisheries management plans have an assessment to make sure that harvest rates are set to restore or maintain populations of harvested species above the biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield. I agree that it is important to have the best available scientific advice to support fisheries management, and this ambition is reflected in the Bill, principally through the scientific evidence objective. However, the Bill specifies that in cases where an assessment of a stock’s MSY cannot be made, steps are taken to obtain the necessary scientific evidence for that to be done.
For some stocks, it is not possible or appropriate to conduct assessments of their MSY. For example, this can be due to stocks such as bycatch or conservation species not being caught in large enough quantities, so that there is insufficient data. Clause 6(3)(b)(iii) contains the important provision that in such circumstances, the fisheries policy authorities must explain their reasoning as to why they are not setting out steps to understand the maximum sustainable yield of the stock. This, I hope, will provide noble Lords with the certainty that they will understand the reasoning if and when, in narrow cases, some stocks in a fisheries management plan do not have such steps set out.
Amendment 57 would include a requirement to state explicitly how each fisheries management plan’s policies link to the fisheries objectives. I recognise my noble and learned friend’s clear intention to ensure that there is a direct link in the Bill between the fisheries management plans and the fisheries objectives. My noble friend Lord Selkirk also made that point, and asked me what the Government’s desire through all this was. It is to have sustainable fisheries with vibrant and successful ecosystems, and a harvest that provides an important food source. However, the joint fisheries statement is already required to explain how fisheries management plans will contribute to all the fisheries objectives.
The plans themselves must be consistent with the joint fisheries statement and must, in accordance with the sustainability objective, set out how they will maintain stocks at sustainable levels. They must also set out how they will obtain new scientific evidence, which will meet the scientific evidence objective; and how they will take a precautionary approach, which links to the precautionary objective.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk also asked about shellfish. Shellfish can and will be covered by fisheries management plans. The newly formed Shellfish Industry Advisory Group is looking to create specific plans, and the scallop industry consultation group is looking at what could be considered in plans too.
The Government believe that the existing provisions for the joint fisheries statement and fisheries management plans, taken together, will clearly demonstrate how our future fisheries management regime will be underpinned by the fisheries objectives.
Amendment 58 gives me the opportunity to set out the process of consultation already provided for in the Bill; we will explore it in more detail later. I support the principle of requiring consultation on the design and implementation of fisheries management plans. The Bill sets out in Clause 3 and Schedule 1 the process for statutory consultation on the joint fisheries statement. The statement will also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny before it is adopted. It will include a list of the proposed fisheries management plans and will necessarily set out general principles around how fisheries management plans will be developed.
The Bill also requires consultation on the fisheries management plans themselves. Part 3 of Schedule 1 is clear that the relevant authority or authorities must bring the consultation draft to the attention of “interested persons”. In addition, we want to learn lessons from other parts of the world and ensure that our plans are appropriate for our circumstances and fisheries. We may therefore trial different types of plans or have plans that nest inside others. Fisheries management is well known for bringing unintended consequences, and we need to be able to adapt, learn and build as we go. We believe that a one-size-fits-all process for the production of plans would therefore not be suitable, for the reasons I have outlined. I assure noble Lords that we intend that the whole process of developing the plans, including their design, be carried out openly and collaboratively.
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s Amendment 61, on clarifying the evidence used in fisheries management plans. I appreciate the importance of making decisions on the basis of the “best” science. I also appreciate the advantages of consistent terminology, as we want to ensure that the Bill’s purpose and ambitions are clear. However, the fisheries objectives already refer to the need to manage fisheries on the basis of the best available science. I am advised that including a reference to “best” science in the provision on fisheries management plans is therefore not needed.
Lord Teverson
I thank the Minister for what I think was a very constructive reply. I could see the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, almost thinking that the Minister was going to concede one amendment—but then it was taken away. What a disappointment, but there we are. Of all the amendments, the one tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, which would put how the objectives have been met in the fisheries management plan, seems to be totally obvious and, while not a substitute for what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, wishes to do, something that would really tie that down. The statements are too high a level to do that; it needs to be done at the level that the noble and learned Lord suggests.
I have one question for the Minister before I— probably—withdraw my amendment. We leave the common fisheries policy on 31 December this year; it will all go and we will have a clean sheet. When does he expect the first of these management plans to be in place, and what will happen in between?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I think I will write to the noble Lord on that precise issue. As I have said, there are some existing plans, as well as work that we are already undertaking. The whole purpose of this is to take those management plans even further. That is why we need to get this framework Bill through, and then we can work on the plans. I could not give the noble Lord a precise date and I am not going to make one up. Obviously a lot of work is being undertaken and we will need to work with the devolved Administrations and interested parties.
As I said in relation to the consultation following Royal Assent, there are provisions here with the affirmative statutory instruments, which will be part of the aftermath of this where we will have consideration. This is work that we need to advance very quickly. I am not in a position to give a precise date—the noble Lord would probably think it unwise if I did so—but this is work that absolutely has to be advanced because, yes, our aspirations for sustainable fisheries apply now and on 1 January and thereafter.
Lord Teverson
I will not press the Minister any more on that, but I think all of us, and maybe the industry itself, would have a concern if there was a blank sheet between when we leave the current regulatory regime and when these plans arrive. I will wait for him to write on that.
I look forward to meeting the Minister, along with others, to understand the management plans more. However, I say yet again that the science has to be the best, and I am glad that that is accepted in principle. We have to find a way to integrate co-operation and co-planning with our adjacent coastal states with our fisheries management plans. We just have to do that; we cannot do it any other way. The debate that we have had has still not convinced me how that will happen in a practical way, and that is very much what I will be looking to the Minister to explain to me and others when we meet before Report. At the moment, though, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lansley
“(5A) If the fisheries policy authorities (or any of them) believe that a statement under this Act is or would be, if made, inconsistent with their policies, they may request an independent reviewer, which the Secretary of State must appoint, to report within 6 weeks.(5B) The Secretary of State and fisheries policy authorities must have regard to the report of the independent reviewer appointed under subsection (5A) in making a JFS thereafter.(5C) The Secretary of State must have regard to the report of the independent reviewer appointed under subsection (5A) before setting out policies in a Secretary of State fisheries statement under section 4, which would otherwise be included in the JFS.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would interpose an independent review, if requested by an authority, if there is a difference of view over policies. It would seek to resolve disputes between authorities before policies are set out in a Secretary of State’s Statement, rather than in a JFS.
Lord Lansley
My Lords, I would be grateful if noble Lords would look at the revised version of Amendment 36 on the supplementary Marshalled List. It is revised not because I have changed my view about what it should say but because there was a transcription error on the Marshalled List. If one is referring to Amendment 36, I would be grateful if one would look at the version on the supplementary list. The difference is that the revised version says “6 weeks” for the report of an independent reviewer, not “six months”.
This is my best effort thus far to meet the test that my noble friend set us on Monday afternoon, when he said that this Bill had been through the mincer to an extent beyond that which most Bills do. He said any change had to meet the test of,
“Gosh, I wish we’d thought of that.”—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 421.]
So this is the amendment that I am hoping the Government might wish they had thought of.
Why do I put it forward? It is like lawyers writing contracts. When people write a contract together, they often sit down and write it on the basis of the agreement they plan to come to. The lawyers carefully explain to them that the purpose of the contract is not simply to give effect to the agreement but to explain what happens when things go wrong. Legislation has to be like this as well; it has to explain what happens if there is no agreement.
My Amendment 36, and indeed this group, provide an opportunity at this stage to look at the process of establishing joint fisheries statements and the Secretary of State’s fisheries statements. I think what we need to do is present that challenge in question. Discussions on the Bill, and between the fisheries authorities of the United Kingdom, have gone very well. However, this does not mean that we cannot be in a position where there might be an element of disagreement about the policies that should be pursued by the respective authorities.
One might say that the Secretary of State writes the policies that they want to pursue in a Secretary of State fisheries statement, that these will no doubt be the reserved matters, and that the respective fisheries policy authorities will set out their own policies on the non-reserved matters. It is not like that, in my view, for two reasons. First, with regard to replacing the common fisheries policy, the industry, if there is no common United Kingdom policy, wants to see at the very least a degree of consistency, not least because there are some objectives that have to be pursued together. We do not have to go back over all of these, but the equal access objective, for example, means that there must be a degree of co-ordination and consistency built into the structure of the licensing processes.
The second reason is that the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement is not simply about reserved matters: it is about quota and how it is used. As we will discuss when we come to Clause 23 and subsequent clauses, the use of quota and the determination of fishing opportunities can override all the devolved matters.
I should say that I was prompted to write Amendment 36 by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, which has said for some time that it wants a dispute resolution mechanism. It wants the fisheries policy authorities, so far as possible, to agree, and for their policies to be reflected in a consistent fashion in a joint fisheries statement. This is something we should endorse. The NFFO did not, however, suggest how the dispute resolution should function, so I took that upon myself—so any deficiencies in the drafting of the amendment or the proposed mechanism lie at my door, not at the NFFO’s.
The NFFO wants a dispute resolution mechanism because it is concerned that it will not otherwise be possible to deliver the equal access objectives, and that things like the economic link requirements under the licences would diverge significantly and cause difficulties for the industry. It feels that devolution is a highly desirable aspect of making decisions, but understandably it does not want this to be done at the cost of the industry finding conflicting and inconsistent decisions in relation to these objectives.
I commend Amendment 36 and will refer very briefly to Amendments 66 and 68, which are also in this group. This takes us into Schedule 1, which is about the process for making the joint fisheries statement and the Secretary of State fisheries statement. At the moment—and I find this interesting—the policy authorities will be publishing a consultation draft. Unless I am mistaken—and I will be glad to be corrected by my noble friend if so—this means that it is not a formal consultation but the publication of a draft at a suitable moment: one on which the Government say that they are happy to receive representations and that they will draw it to the attention of all interested persons.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
My Lords, if nobody else wishes to speak, I want to do so on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, who unfortunately could not be here today but who gave me permission this morning to speak to his two amendments in this group, 40 and 47.
Amendment 40 states:
“If, in the light of a review, the fisheries policy authorities conclude that changes are not required to the JFS, they must prepare and publish, as soon as reasonably practicable, a statement setting out the reasons for that conclusion.”
My interpretation of this is that if, in the light of a review, the fisheries policy authorities conclude that changes are not required to the joint fisheries statement, they must prepare and publish as soon as practicable. In other words, there must be as much openness as possible in the statement setting out the reasons for that conclusion.
Amendment 67 states that the period should be
“not less than 28 days”.
This means that the facts must be realistically and correctly stated in the document that would be issued. This decision ensures that the scrutiny period for consultation on the joint fisheries statement should be long enough to ascertain all the facts. It is a safeguard that should be supported, and I submit that it is in the interests of everyone involved. The purpose is to prevent a conclusion being rushed out when all the scientific evidence may need to be taken into account for the cause of sustainability.
I do not think there is anything more I can adequately say on this subject, as the facts speak for themselves.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas. I too was going to speak to Amendments 40 and 47 on behalf of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose—the Law Society of Scotland had sent me a very extensive briefing—but the noble Lord has made all the points that I would have made.
On issue of the 28 days, we have Amendment 69, which mirrors Amendment 67. The Bill currently requires each of the fisheries policy authorities to specify a period for scrutiny of the consultation draft of the joint fisheries statement, but no definition is set out in paragraphs (3) and (4) of Schedule 1. There is no timescale attached to the definition, and it is important that we have one.
The Bill provides that each fisheries policy authority must specify a period for scrutiny of the consultation draft by the appropriate legislature. To rectify this, we propose a minimum period of 28 days if scrutiny must be undertaken. That is important, so I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and have added my name to it. I know that my noble friend the Minister will say that the amendment is not needed, but I would argue that it is. If there were no changes to the joint fisheries statement, we should be able to understand why that was the case and why everyone had agreed. It would be helpful to have more openness and transparency in that regard.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group which I am sure the Minister will be able to bat away quickly and easily. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on his amendment: it is a problem that I thought we would never have, but he suggests a way to resolve it and I am sure that he would make an excellent independent adviser if it should ever arise.
Clause 3(1) states:
“The fisheries policy authorities may at any time prepare and publish a replacement JFS.”
It comes back to trying to make the rules clearer. Can one of the authorities trigger this, or does there have to be a consensus? I look to the Minister for guidance on what precisely that mechanism is.
I always like simplification in life. While I understand what the Bill is trying to do in requiring two fisheries statements, it would be great to have a combined document so that everybody could understand how the policy looks as a whole. That would be terribly useful to the consumers of the legislation; that is, the industry and all the stakeholders.
I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the department came to six years as a review period. We have American presidential elections every four years, the World Cup is every four years, the Olympics are every four years, and fixed-term Parliaments are every five. Why six? It would be better if it was five. Six years seems a long time in terms of marine ecology and fisheries statements. It should be looked at just a little more regularly.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, we have a relatively simple amendment, Amendment 74, in this group. The Bill requires the fisheries policy authorities to produce periodically a report on the extent to which their policies as set out in the joint fisheries statement have been implemented. Where there is an omission, the Secretary of State is required to intervene.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State, if required to produce a report on the policies omitted from the joint fisheries statement, to consult not only the devolved Administrations but a wider group of representative bodies on the content of the report. It is a straightforward amendment which seeks to fill a gap in the consultation provisions made elsewhere in the Bill. The provision in Schedule 1 does not spell this out in sufficient detail.
On an earlier amendment, the Minister read out a list of representative bodies which the department regularly consults, which of course is welcome, and described it as an “expert advisory group”. However, that is different from a statutory requirement to consult at various stages of policy production and review. I hope that the Minister will concede that our amendment would fill a gap in the consultation proposals. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I hope that she does not just bat it away.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his amendments. As he said, we need mechanisms to address what happens when things go wrong, and he made a good stab at doing that. He made the useful proposal that an independent review could be sought when conflicts over policies and their application arose. I hope that the Minister agrees that those proposals have some merit. The noble Lord’s other amendments touch on the extent to which representatives of the UK fishing fleet should be consulted. Again, that is important. We agree with the proposal but, as in our amendment, would want any consultation extended to a wider group of stakeholders.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, relate to the timescale for the review of joint fisheries statements. He proposed a more meaningful review period of five years rather than six. We agree that there is little logic in the six-year timescale. Given that it is assumed that international negotiations will continue to take place annually, it seems far more practical to review and update the joint fisheries statements in a more timely way in line with changes taking place scientifically and the negotiations with the international community. As he said, five years is consistent also with the parliamentary cycle, so there seems to be not much logic for six and a whole lot more logic for five. I hope that the Minister is able to take that on board.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, seeks via his amendments to build more flexibility into the production of joint fisheries statements. He may have a point, although I doubt that there would be many occasions where there would not be some need for a review every five or—if necessary—six years.
At the heart of these amendments is a need for proper statutory consultation, meaningful timeframes, the best advice and flexibility. I hope that the Minister will see the sense in the proposals and perhaps take some on board.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
My Lords, I congratulate your Lordships on getting through a daunting-looking group of amendments in record time. Your points have been made well and succinctly.
Any Secretary of State fisheries statement, or SSFS, would cover only reserved and UK quota matters and would be published only if such matters were not covered in the joint fisheries statement. It is our intention that the joint fisheries statement will be the vehicle which sets out the fisheries administrations’ future fisheries management policies, respecting the devolved nature of fisheries but recognising the benefits of a joined-up approach.
My noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 36 relates to a process to resolve disagreements through an independent review. While I appreciate the sentiment behind making provision for disagreements over policy between fisheries policy authorities to be dealt with amicably, it is unclear exactly how he is interpreting the expression
“a statement under this Act”.
Sadly, I am advised that the amendment would create legal uncertainty.
In respecting the devolution settlements, the provision for a JFS allows for the fisheries policy authorities to set out individual policies alongside those agreed jointly. This means that an authority could publish its own policies if they would contravene its wider policies as part of the statement. Therefore, given that the statement requires administrations to set out their policies, it is hard to envisage how they could then claim that the statement was incompatible with those very policies. If the amendment related to the SSFS, the Bill is clear that this can contain only reserved or UK quota matters, so it would be inappropriate for other fisheries authorities to be able to block a decision by the UK Government in this case. The amendment also seems to allow for a review to be invoked at any time after a SSFS or JFS is finalised, potentially leading to uncertainty around the state of those documents after they are in force.
The review process could also cause problems for the fisheries policy authorities in complying with what the Bill sets out as their legal duty to produce a joint fisheries statement, because it would appear to undermine the statutory framework for co-operation that we are seeking to build, by consent, with the devolved Administrations. I appreciate the concerns that my noble friend seeks to address through the amendment, but perhaps I can provide further reassurance to him by saying that other, non-legislative elements of the framework will be set out in a memorandum of understanding which is being developed with the devolved Administrations. This will enshrine co-operative ways of working and a mechanism for escalating and resolving disputes, were they to arise. Existing governance structures and agreements such as the overarching MOU on devolution between UKG and the devolved authorities, which sets out the JMC process for managing intergovernmental disputes, will also continue to apply.
Lord Teverson
I did not understand the Minister’s response on my Amendment 37. I am specifically trying to understand how the joint fisheries statement is triggered. Forgive me, I may have misheard the Minister, but can it be triggered by any one of the authorities or does it have to be unanimously triggered by them? It is not specified, and that obviously makes a big difference to when replacements might be demanded or when they might happen. Clause 3(1) does not say how those are triggered, just that they can be at any time. It is by one, two, three or four of the devolved authorities?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
There was a part of the speech that got cut, which I think may provide some elucidation on this point. The JFS is a joint endeavour; all fisheries policy authorities must work together throughout the drafting processes, publication, and review and replacement of the statements. All authorities must agree to go consultation and to publish. I hope that answers the noble Lord.
Lord Teverson
So, to clarify, there has to be unanimous agreement between all authorities for a replacement policy to be a triggered?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I think I had better write to the noble Lord in response to that question.
Lord Lansley
I am grateful to my noble friend. There were 14 amendments in this group, so it was not easy to tackle them all, not least since we managed to introduce them all in 18 minutes—it did not leave a lot of time for the preparation of notes on amendments. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, because the point he just made in his further intervention illustrated forcefully the point I was making. This is all absolutely fine if everybody agrees; it is when they do not agree that we want the legislation to tell us what happens. I do not think it does that yet.
My noble friend has explained that there will be a memorandum of understanding and, as we have heard, there is the 2012 concordat relating to licence conditions and how the economic link requirement is implemented and so on. I do not dispute that non-legislative means may well deliver the co-ordination between the fisheries policy authorities that is required, but it is not transparent to us now; nor is it transparent yet to the industry. That is why the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations asked, quite properly, the questions and illustrated how problems could arise; for example, on the implementation of the equal access objective.
My noble friend quite rightly challenged my drafting, but we can deal with that if we need to. It could perhaps be “statements under this Section” and not “under this Act”; we can deal with that very easily. If necessary, we can make it very clear that the independent reviewer could be resorted to by any of the fisheries policy authorities before the point at which the joint fisheries statement is made—that is just to clarify; I thought it was clear but it clearly was not. We can deal with the drafting.
The issue that we come back to is: what happens when they do not agree? I am afraid that my noble friend lapsed straight into the problem that I think we are trying to avoid, which is that the fisheries policy authorities that have devolved responsibilities will set out their policies and the Secretary of State will set out policies on reserved matters in the Secretary of State fisheries statement. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made perfectly clear, we want and the industry needs—and it will clearly be better—all the policies to be set out in the joint fisheries statement. They can be; there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that requires the Secretary of State to publish a Secretary of State fisheries statement on reserved matters. The Secretary of State can put it all into the JFS. It would be better if it were all in the JFS, but it will all get into the JFS only if there is agreement between all the authorities to this effect. But that is pretty important: remember that the reserved matters in this context include quota functions—the catch quota and effort quota—which could, in certain circumstances, completely override what might otherwise be the licensing of fishing boats by devolved authorities. If we can get it all into the JFS, it would be a better outcome.
I will happily beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I do not think that we have concluded this conversation. We need to keep this conversation going, and I hope that my noble friend will make it clear that we will—she does not need to go back to the Dispatch Box. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Schoolchildren: Dyslexia and Neurodiverse Conditions
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the problems of and possible solutions for children in the school system with dyslexia and other neurodiverse conditions.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has put their name down to speak in this debate. I should probably declare my interests, which I am afraid are slightly legion in this case: I am dyslexic; I am president of the British Dyslexia Association; and I am chairman of Microlink PC, which is an assistive technology company—there are probably a couple of other things, but I think we have the gist of it.
Why did I table this debate? It is because, at the moment, special educational needs are in trouble. It is a very good concept; many Governments have said over a long period of time that we will stop allowing X percentage—say 20% or 25%—of our pupils to be written off, which historically had happened. But we are now saying they shall be educated—great—and we have a legislative structure that says they shall be provided with help, and we have got ourselves into a position that is probably a classic case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions, where we are letting down people who are trying to fulfil all this.
Before we go any further on this, I apologise for starting with dyslexia; I realise it ain’t the only show in town. Autism, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, ADHD are all there, but dyslexia is the one I know best, the one I had the best briefing on, and the one I am least likely to make a mistake on.
The British Dyslexia Association reckons that 80% of those on the spectrum—and it is a spectrum—are unidentified by the time they leave school. We are only touching the edges. Most of those with most of the problems are probably not the most severe—those with the Belisha beacon that says, “There is a problem here, so come to it”; it is those at the edges, the people who are just underachieving, just failing. This is probably the group where we should put much more attention, because these people often do not get spotted, do not get assistance and either fail or, more likely, very much underachieve.
We have had descriptions of the issue, and as always the Library’s briefing captures it when it quotes a House of Commons Education Committee report, published last year, describing the system as,
“‘badly hampered by poor administration’ and a ‘challenging funding environment’ … The Local Government Association has stated that the current system is at a ‘tipping point’, as demand for SEN services has risen much faster than funding has been made available.”
We have real problems here. Why do we have problems? The fact is that somebody who is dyslexic, dyspraxic or whatever it is gets placed in a classroom that is designed for the other groups. If you are dyslexic, you are usually taught most of your subjects via a whiteboard or with somebody repeating dictation. You are expected to acquire the language quickly enough to be able to process it in that way. If you are dyspraxic, you are not writing it down quickly enough. If you have an attention deficit disorder, you cannot concentrate for that period of time. If you have autism, there may be a fundamental gap between what is being asked of you and how you understand it. Every one of these processes means that that challenging classroom situation becomes, for you, something that is either much more difficult to overcome or actually impossible.
What is the natural reaction to this of any pupil in that place? It is survival, is it not? To take dyslexia again, the classic reaction is either to disappear in the middle of the class—become invisible as much as you can—or disrupt it. Both are perfectly natural reactions. You have got rid of the pressure on you; you are fine. The fact that you are not being taught is something that will catch up with you in later life, but at the time, if you are eight or nine years old, you cannot deal with what is going on so you will take a survival method.
What happens to the teacher? The teacher does not know what to do, because they are not trained; it is as simple that. They are not trained to spot or to give support. If we cannot train everybody to be an expert in all these subjects, we can certainly make them slightly better at spotting problems. What we must do is quite simply bring the expertise into the school system. It will cost about £4,000 to get a level 7 qualified dyslexia teacher trained up, and it will be roughly similar, I am told, for the other major disability groups—and these are disabilities, I feel. You are supposed to get £6,000 spent on you by a school when you start. The first £6,000 comes out. Whatever happens, it is not expensive to get some structure in there. If we put extra units and extra response capacity into initial teacher training, we will probably save time and money in the long term and probably in the medium term.
Let us not forget that, the last time I looked, more than £80 million is spent on appeals to get an education, health and care plan. It has become a solution for some 3% of the school system. It was never designed to be that. The response I got, rather manfully, from the Government Front Bench in the past was, “Oh, but the Government do not lose all these cases.” No: it is only about 87%. Autism is greatly overrepresented in this process. Something is wrong here. Unless we get more support into the classroom and stop having to go back to local authorities, which are under budgetary pressure, again we have a problem. The school has a problem here. We need another approach.
The Government have said they will spend £500 million, I think—I forget the exact figure—on high-needs cases. What is a high-needs case? Is it the people who are already spotted, or is it those people who have had a moderate problem that could have been dealt with but has become worse? In the case of dyslexia, they say, “We will not come in and help you unless you have been failing for three years.” Let us take a moderate problem and make it that much worse, that much more difficult to deal with.
Let us also remember that, with a whole-school approach, we can look wider than the classroom. I have met people who have said, “Did you know you can get autistic people to do games?” Apparently, a lot of autistic people like cricket: nice function, nice individual team game. Apparently, they are good strikers in football, better than midfield generals. It is possibly understandable. These things go on. A PE teacher might be better at understanding dyspraxia. It was a great revelation to me—I should have known this, but I did not—that many people with dyspraxia have terrible trouble getting fit and staying fit. When you think about muscle memory, it probably becomes slightly more understandable. So let us look outside the classroom as well, because for some groups PE or playtime will become a response; a place to hide and get some relief. For others, it becomes worse.
Finally, one thing that hits all these groups, and probably hits dyslexics worst, is the marking of spelling, punctuation and grammar. You can lose 5% in English language, history, geography and religious studies, I think it is. That may not sound that big a thing, but I put it like this: at the top end of the problem, you are not going to get a 9 in a 1 to 9 grading if you lose 5% if you use dictation or computer-operated systems. I use computer-operated systems all the time. For English, you can lose 20%. It is said that if you spell out every word, you will not lose it for spelling. If you are dyslexic and using a computer-operated system, you cannot; it is almost impossible. The fact that the fine-detail memory or short-term memory of someone within the dyslexia spectrum is not good means that they are not going to take on the arbitrary rules of grammar and punctuation—and they are fairly arbitrary —and they will be marked down. And English, where you can lose 20%, is a gateway subject. If you do not get English, you cannot do X or Y afterwards. Noble Lords who think that that is bad should look at the functional skills problems in further education.
There are many problems here. I finish with a final anecdote, which the Minister’s office has certainly seen. There are skills that you could mark when you are using assistive technology. For instance, when the Minister’s office wrote to me asking what I was going to be talking about, I sent back a message. I meant to say, “The principal thrust of what I am going to say”, but apparently what came through was, “The printable thrust of what I am going to say.” Possibly that is a skill for not reading backwards. You could remark and put them down, but that is one you should get right. Will the Government give us their ideas about this? They are talking about increasing use of the technology going through the process—it is in one of the responses I have with me, I think it is from Michelle Donelan. You have something you can mark that people can achieve. Please, can we look at this and become slightly more realistic about the support that can be given?
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for securing this debate and introducing it with knowledge and passion. Maya Angelou once said that we must
“teach young people early on that in diversity there is beauty and there is strength.”
This debate is about including all children in education and ensuring our schools are proud of their diversity. My focus is on the positive impact that comes with providing a good education for every child.
I start by considering the problems children face in schools at the moment. Every day, autistic school children must contend with sensory challenges, social communication problems and a lack of routine. Looking at the bigger picture, I ask whether our education system is willing to teach or even capable of teaching autistic children at all. Why do I say that? A National Audit Office study in 2017 found that SEND pupils accounted for 45% of all permanent school exclusions and 43% of fixed-term exclusions, despite accounting for only 15% of pupils. This is not to mention unofficial “soft” exclusions, whereby parents are asked to take their children home for a “cooling off period”. In 2017, Ofsted found an “alarming number” of these, despite unofficial exclusions being unlawful. In 2017, 12% of inquiries at the National Autistic Society’s schools exclusion service related to informal exclusion. A survey carried out by the society and the All-Party Group on Autism found that one in four parents said that their child had been “informally” excluded at least once from school in the previous year.
In 2018, the Fischer Family Trust found that there were 7,700 more children “missing” from schools in England than the government figures revealed. What is being done to find these missing pupils and crack down on these illegal exclusions? The problem is also linked to the ongoing scourge of off-rolling—the practice of removing a pupil from the school roll without using a permanent exclusion. It is aimed at serving the best interests of the school, rather than that of the pupil. Ofsted found that off-rolling is more likely to happen to children who have special educational needs. Can the Minister say how this is being combated?
We should look for solutions first, and acknowledge that off-rolling can come from underfunding and school competition. Ofsted should crack down on schools that off-roll pupils and thereby deny them the education they deserve. It would also be worth reviewing school league tables and the role that competition plays in schools wanting to offload pupils who have worse results. We should encourage our schools to value all their pupils; the variety of ideas and talents that are brought from the neurodiverse community is so important. We must consider the role that school league tables play in promoting anti-neurodiverse practices in schools in favour of the superficial facade of good results. Do the Government intend to review school league tables?
Underfunded training and fewer resources to support children with special educational needs is another factor. While the number of children identified as having the greatest need rose by 10% between 2013 and 2018, funding for pupils dropped by 2.6% in real terms. The Government announced £700 million for special educational needs this year, but nothing in the following years. Why? Can the Minister explain that?
Finally, the benefits of ensuring children with special educational needs are in school are evident to all of us. Studies show that inclusive learning is beneficial to all students, not just those with special educational needs. Children with special educational needs have fewer absences, develop stronger skills in reading and maths, and their peers are more comfortable and tolerant, increasing self-esteem and encouraging diverse and caring friendships.
We are right to discuss this problem this evening. Children with special educational needs deserve to be, and are right to be, in school. First and foremost, we must ensure that they can be there in the first place. The beauty and strength of diversity that comes with ensuring every child attends school will improve the learning skills of all our children, ensure that they have a well-rounded education and contribute to the more inclusive society which we all want in our country.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, all those in our school system who seek to provide better assistance and support to children with dyslexia and neurodiverse conditions have no more determined and effective champion in this House than the noble Lord, Lord Addington. He deserves strong support across the House this evening. The current system is, indeed, in trouble, as he said at the outset.
A government review is in prospect. Announced last September, further details about it are eagerly awaited, as my noble friend who will be replying to this debate will be well aware. The review will need to be conducted thoroughly and swiftly, leading to clear recommendations for improvement. Sadly, these are not always features of government inquiries. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and his supporters across the House will need to keep a sharp eye on this.
The all-party Commons Select Committee on Education, in its report last year on special educational needs and disabilities, found that
“the 2014 reforms have resulted in confusion and at times unlawful practice, bureaucratic nightmares, buck-passing and a lack of accountability, strained resources and adversarial experiences”.
This is a formidable catalogue of woe. It is up to the Government, through their review, to set the scene at last for the success we all want to see in the reformed system, created amid such high hopes in 2014.
I declare my interest as president of the Independent Schools Association, which works on behalf of nearly 550 smaller, less well-known schools in the independent sector, whose good work attracts little attention in the media. I wish that commentators and education pundits would look more closely at them. They would get a more accurate understanding of what the independent sector as a whole is really like today. Many of the association’s schools are giving very effective help and support to the kind of children who are at the forefront of our thoughts in this debate.
One school in particular always leaps to my mind when dyslexia is under discussion: Maple Hayes Hall School, near Lichfield. It is known to the noble Lord, Lord Storey. It achieves magnificent results year after year for the 100 or so pupils with severe dyslexia that it can accommodate. Ofsted rates it as outstanding. What is the secret of its success? The joint heads, Dr Neville Brown and his son Dr Daryl Brown, explain:
“Pupils who come to us have had great difficulty in learning their letter sounds, in splitting up the oral word into syllables and the syllables into their component sounds or ‘phenomes’, and in getting these sounds and their letters in the right order when spelling words. The dyslexic child has extreme difficulties in learning to read and write by phonics. We specialise in teaching methods which lead away from a dyslexic’s area of weakness and build on their strengths with a range of targeted teaching strategies which do not involve phonics or multi-sensory methods. A good all-round education follows.”
These world-leading experts are now working on a phenome dictionary, which will be the first of its kind in the world. What is truly tragic is the time they have to spend battling with local authorities which seek to obstruct families with EHC plans exercising their right to choose a place at the school. The government review must address not only the inadequate funding of the system as a whole but the bias of some local authorities which want to keep money away from schools such as Maple Hayes, despite the outstanding results achieved.
It is interesting to note that at Maple Hayes the emphasis is on moving away from a child’s weakness and building on their strengths. That is at the heart of the approach advocated by leading authorities on neurodiversity. An American expert, Dr Thomas Armstrong, said in 2017:
“Special education needs to change … For too long it’s been weighed down by a history emphasising deficit, disorder, and dysfunction … the role of the neurodiversity-oriented special educator”
should be
“one of creating environments within which neurodiverse students can thrive.”
Some very useful comments were made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, as to how a more positive approach could be achieved.
In this debate, we are all conscious primarily that the existing system is far from fulfilling the hopes with which it was introduced in 2014. But is there, perhaps, a deeper problem arising from the deficit model that the system incorporates? That, I think, is a question worth careful consideration.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, it was very early—in kindergarten—when it was spotted that our younger son Josh might have an issue. By the age of six or seven, his prep school gave up on him, so we sent him to a specialist learning school here in London. It tried for two years but he did not improve that much. At nine, we sent him to boarding school—Bruern Abbey in Oxfordshire—a specialist school with 10 children to a class and two teachers per classroom. He improved and improved and got into one of the finest schools in the world at the age of 13. He was at the bottom of the school when he started but, last year, he finished at that school at 18 with three A*s at A-level.
There were three reasons for his improvement. First, we spotted it early. Secondly, we had access to the best possible teaching for his condition, which was dyslexia, dyspraxia and ADHD. Thirdly was his effort—you can get there. One of my team, Omaar from India, said it was spotted from the age of six that he had an issue. His parents got him tuition all through his schooling and he ended up doing a master’s at UCL. However, that is for people who can afford it.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for initiating the debate. In January 2019, 14.9% of pupils in England had a special educational need—SEN—and yet only 3.1% had an EHC plan. In its September 2019 report, the National Audit Office said that the current system of support is not “financially sustainable.” The Local Government Association has stated that the current system has reached a “tipping point” as demand for SEN services has risen much faster than funding has been made available. I have spoken to John Floyd, the headmaster of Bruern Abbey School, which now has 160 boys. He said that the law is good, but access to support is agonisingly slow and difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, talked about the appeals process. John Floyd went on to stress the importance of teaching in the right way and observed that dyslexic children are not achieving their potential.
Professor Julie Allan, professor of equity and inclusion at the School of Education at the University of Birmingham, has said clearly that SEN children
“are not being supported adequately”
and has referred to
“the view expressed by parents and special needs groups that there is a ‘crisis’ in SEN provision.”
She concluded:
“This failure to provide adequate support is, in part, a consequence of the increased demand.”
The CBI, of which I am vice-president, has said that the business case for diversity and inclusion is “rock solid” and yet EY research found that 56% of global senior executives rarely or never discuss disability in their leadership agenda. As a country, we have to do a lot more.
I helped launched DARE to Think Differently with Autistica, a wonderful autism charity founded by Dame Stephanie Shirley, one of the biggest autism benefactors in the world. It points out clearly that while 16% of autistic people are in full-time employment, 77% want to be in work. We know about the famous dyslexics, the Winston Churchills, Albert Einsteins and so on. Richard Branson has said:
“I was seen as the dumbest person in school.”
He has set up a fantastic charity and pointed out that dyslexic people have a unique set of skills that are really important to business. The 2019 House of Commons Education Select Committee report, Special Educational Needs and Disabilities, states clearly:
“Special educational needs and disabilities must be seen as part of the whole approach”,
but goes on to observe that the approach of the Department for Education is
“piecemeal, creating reactive, sticking-plaster policies, when what is needed is serious effort to ensure that issues are fully grappled with, and the 2014 Act works properly, as was intended.”
The 2014 Act is a good piece of legislation. Does the Minister agree with that?
The number of families seeking help has surged by 11%. The National Audit Office has said that children with special needs are being marginalised. The rise in the number of special needs pupils forces them to travel out of area to school, while, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, schools are failing to diagnose 80% of dyslexic pupils. That is shocking. The British Dyslexia Association has said that diagnosis and support for such children is the worst it has seen since government funding started in the 1980s. According to the Department for Education, out of 8.7 million schoolchildren in England, it is estimated that 870,000 have dyslexia, but fewer than 150,000 have been diagnosed.
Every school needs to employ specialist teachers because the human cost of dyslexia in terms of the emotional and psychological impact on poorly supported dyslexic children is high. A report by the all-party parliamentary group for dyslexia, supported by the British Dyslexia Association, has said clearly that 95% of parents feel that they lack the knowledge and skills to deal with this situation. Some 70% of parents feel that schools do not support their dyslexic children. The association has recommended specialist support in each school; training for classroom teachers; adequate pastoral, academic and mental health provision; adequate, accessible information for parents; and that schools should invest in training and resourcing so that they meet the standards and ensure coherent national frameworks.
As Helen Boden, CEO of the British Dyslexia Association, has said:
“The human cost of dyslexia is too high, and we need to change that.”
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, for nearly 20 years I represented primarily former coalmining families in the so-called red wall. The first thing I was told in a school when I went there after I was elected was, “You shouldn’t expect too much of these kids because they are pit fodder”—as their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers had been. When I represented the fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers in industrial injury compensation claims where they had been done over by both their unions and their solicitors, I discovered a strange phenomenon. It took me a few months to grasp it. Every old miner who had come to see me would arrive with a daughter. Initially I thought that it was just for comfort, assistance and advice, but the obvious quickly dawned on me. They brought their daughters along because they could not read. My own grandfather could read but he could not write because he was left-handed and he was not allowed to write. He never wrote a thing. I do not know how he filled in his postal vote form or wrote out cheques because he never signed his own name. The problem is intergenerational.
When thinking about the success or not of the 2014 changes, let us not kid ourselves that the situation before then was better, because it was not: it was far worse, and it has not improved anything like as much as it needs to. The condition manifests itself in schools through behavioural problems. People did not say that their son or daughter could not read something or that they had special educational needs like the middle-class families did. You could identify where they came from by the school. In the mining villages, they would be expelled from school at 14 for behavioural problems. They had problems with the police and they could not get a job, so it was rather late in the day. Without question, my biggest failure was not to tackle this concept of special educational needs and what should be done about it.
I have drawn two conclusions about it. The first is that for the majority of children, having simplified, well-structured systems with good discipline—the kinds of things that the academies in the area I live in have been doing very successfully—improves their outcomes. But not all children are the same and the minority end up being excluded, as others have outlined. Children are being excluded in large numbers and it is always because of behavioural issues, but what lies underneath that is the fact that they do not have the core skills they need. If you have ADHD or dyslexia, that is a gap in core skills which needs to be addressed, and if it has not been addressed, it is patently obvious. The parents may have had the same problems and cannot articulate them. Actually, I found that there would often be a clash between the parent and the school because the school did not understand where the parent was coming from, so the problems were exacerbated even more. Not all children are the same in terms of education. That is a fundamental if we are to have the workforce we need post Brexit to meet the skills requirements of the country.
There is a second thing that the Government should think about. It was a big breakthrough to get the Law Society to redefine vulnerability. There has been some success, but not as much, with the Financial Conduct Authority and the Financial Ombudsman Service. Adults who cannot read and write cannot deal with the paperwork that is put in front of them by people in financial services. That is a vulnerability which means that when there is mis-selling, that vulnerability should be quantified as an issue that should have been pre-identified. If that is done, fairness in the system will be greater for all, and I would strongly recommend that to the Government.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, splendidly keeps up a steady drumbeat of persuasion which, together with those of us involved in autism issues, has resulted in considerable extra support from Governments. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend the Minister that that support is much appreciated.
As I said in a recent debate, all the manifestos of the political parties stated strong support for those in our communities who have disabilities. I agree totally with all of the key points made by the previous speakers. I share the strongly held view of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, regarding the advantage to the taxpayer if these issues are understood fully in every school in the country. From head teachers to specialists, all teachers should be trained so that they are able to notice the early signs of dyslexia or autism in a child, which can then be passed on to the trained teacher. Early detection is absolutely key, to be followed up by the necessary support. Going through mainstream schooling plays a huge part in a disabled child’s ability to contribute as a member of society and gain that wonderful feeling of quiet self-esteem.
What is the reverse side of the coin? It is hopelessness, a feeling of failure and of not being wanted, neediness and increasing anxiety, leading to increasing mental health problems and, in many cases, early death. What is often forgotten is that no child with a disability is on their own. Parents, grandparents, siblings, friends and carers play a crucial part in their lives; but probably the mothers play the key, devoted role after experiencing huge personal stress and, often, break-up of the marriage. I suggest that strong action would now be right. The right financial support would transform the lives of many millions of people, as well as those of disabled young people. We have the empathy: let us do it now. To borrow Motability’s strapline, let us put disabled people and their families on the road to freedom.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I was very interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, because when I first started teaching in a place called Prescot, near St Helens, pupils who had behavioural problems or learning difficulties were referred to as “the remedials” and were pushed aside from the rest of the children. We have come a long way since then, thank goodness. I want to start by recognising the progress we have made in special educational needs in general, and dyslexia in particular. It is through the rugged determination of parents and numerous organisations, and their constant tenacity, that we have seen the progress we have made thus far. Speaking of rugged determination, one need look no further, of course, than my noble friend Lord Addington, who has secured this debate; we thank him for that.
If we go back 10 years or so, it was a very different state of affairs. Now, we have qualified special needs co-ordinators in our schools; whether they have the time to do the job properly, given their timetable commitments, is another issue. Many noble Lords have referred to the education, health and care plans, which were a really important development. Sadly, we did not realise at the time that their success in identifying special educational needs almost created an unsustainable situation. It was at a time when schools did not have many resources; schools and local government were facing huge financial problems. Parents felt let down, of course, when the appeals system became clogged up as well. We must ensure that those resources are there now for the education, health and care plans.
Two statistics really shocked me, and they have been mentioned already: 52% of teachers said they had no training in dyslexia; and, as my noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, mentioned, schools in England are failing to diagnose at least 80% of children who have dyslexia. Those are frightening statistics. Let us put this in perspective: 10% to 15% of children are dyslexic; 14.9% of our pupils have special educational needs; and 3.1% of our pupils are on education, health and care plans. We need to sort out all that potential and talent among young people. As a number of noble Lords have said, the earlier we do it, the sooner we can sort those issues out. It is a sad state of affairs that £100 million a year is spent by local authorities in legal fees, fighting the parents who want dyslexia support for their child. Imagine if we used that £100 million in schools: we would be able to solve many of the problems that have been discussed. Talking about schools, I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, to go to Maple Hayes School and I thank him again for doing that. I actually learned a tremendous amount and was very impressed with that school.
Most teachers still get little or no formal training in addressing learning difficulties. Most teaching courses include options on teaching children with special educational needs—but notice the word “options”: it is not compulsory. What do we need to do now? As the noble Lords, Lord Sterling and Lord Bilimoria, have said, we need to spot this early on. We need to make sure that schools have resources for special educational needs. Some schools are facing financial difficulties and then have to find £6,000 for diagnosis and support, which leads to delay and excuses, and that is just plain daft. All training of teachers—whether at college, university, teachers-direct or Teach First—must have mandatory components on special educational needs. Teachers need to be able to recognise learning difficulties and there needs to be CPD in all our schools: the British Dyslexia Association has suggested 30 hours. The BDA has suggested that dyslexic assessors train teachers to spot signs in the classroom. I am not completely convinced about this; if you released time for the special needs co-ordinator and trained teachers, that would not be necessary.
I hope that the rugged determination shown by your Lordships—my noble friend Lord Addington in particular—and the various associations will continue until we get this issue right.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for the huge amount of work that he undertakes on behalf of people of all ages with dyslexia, of which securing today’s debate is merely the latest example. He speaks with great authority on the subject, of course, something of which I am sure the Minister will be aware.
Children affected by neurodiverse conditions are entitled to extra support in schools, but all too often these children and their families do not receive support they need to enable them to make the most of their life in general and their educational experience in particular. Not only does the £700 million of extra funding for SEND announced by the Government last year fail to reverse the funding cuts of recent years, it is less than half the amount that the Local Government Association says is needed annually for special needs and high-needs education.
Schools find it increasingly difficult to support SEND pupils due to the loss of learning support assistants and teaching assistants resulting from general school funding cuts, increased class sizes, long waiting times for SEND assessments, and the workload of special educational needs co-ordinators. Parents without the resources to obtain their own assessment often regard an education, health and care plan as the only way to get the support their child needs. Yet to achieve even an assessment of the child by a local authority—far less receive an EHC plan—takes on average more than a year: that is time wasted in which the child has continued to underachieve, lost interest or perhaps even given up on their learning.
This has led to the almost inconceivable situation whereby councils pay almost as much in legal fees to avoid EHC plans as it would cost to provide and support the plans themselves. As highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, councils lose 90% of the cases at the First-tier Tribunal when challenged, which surely underlines the futility of their stance. I am reluctant to blame local authorities, given the funding situation in which they have been placed by successive Governments.
Last year, Ofsted highlighted that even when a child has been assessed, they still struggle to access the services and support they need. In 2018, more than 200 children with a statement or EHC plan were awaiting provision—almost three times the figure in 2010. Amanda Spielman said:
“One child with SEND not receiving the help they need is disturbing enough, but thousands is a national scandal.”
That was Her Majesty’s chief inspector speaking, which should have caused great alarm in the DfE and among Ministers. Did it? A year later, the picture has not improved.
My noble friend Lord Touhig spoke, as he always does, with passion and panache on autism, which is the most common type of special educational need for children who have an EHC plan or statement, with 27% of these children having it as their main need. Despite these numbers, too many children on the autism spectrum are held back from getting the support they need to succeed, and 43% of appeals to the SEND tribunal are on behalf of these children.
The British Dyslexia Association has outlined policy changes to noble Lords that it believes are required for young people with dyslexia. Many GCSE and A-level exams still test pupils’ communication skills through a written exam, awarding marks for spelling, punctuation and grammar, or SPAG as it is known. This was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. This system is particularly disadvantageous to young people with dyslexia, who are marked down for a skill that can be easily managed in a modern workplace. Will the Government consider whether SPAG marks are the best approach to assessing communication skills for the modern workplace?
As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, awareness-raising of SEND issues in initial teacher training is simply not adequate to equip newly qualified teachers with the skills necessary to support SEND pupils in a classroom setting. The recently introduced ITT core content framework fails to give clear guidance on the amount and standard of training on SEND. It would be helpful to have an explanation from the Minister as to why the Government decided not to make the changes that the sector had asked for when the current approach is failing newly qualified teachers and young people with SEND.
In the short time available, it has not been possible to speak about other neurodiverse conditions, but that is not to ignore or disrespect the issues associated with dyspraxia, dyscalculia, ADHD or Tourette’s. We await the publication of the Government’s SEND review. On Monday in another place the Secretary of State said:
“We are very happy to look at any suggestions … because as part of our special educational needs review we are trying to see how we can best deliver these services for the benefit of every child.”—[Official Report, Commons, 2/3/20; col. 606.]
I welcome that, because it suggests that the Government are planning more than just changes to the funding regime—possibly even structural changes. I say to the Minister that both are required if SEND children and their parents are to receive the support that they need and have a right to expect.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in paying tribute once again to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who is a noted champion of neurodiversity. I thank him and other noble Lords for their speeches this evening on this important topic.
The attainment gap that we are dealing with here is a very serious issue. It is the Government’s ambition that every child should have access to a world-class education of the type that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, outlined. Therefore, it is clearly important that all children with special educational needs and disabilities—I will use the acronym SEND—including dyslexia and other neurodiverse conditions receive appropriate, high-quality support so that they can achieve well in their education and future lives.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Sterling that early detection is important. He referred to these children being in mainstream education. That is enshrined in law, and we are concerned that an increasing number of those with EHC plans—about 50%—are now in special provision.
As noble Lords will remember, in 2014 we introduced major reforms to the SEND system. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for his humble recognition that, prior to these reforms, the situation was far from perfect and there have been improvements. This was part of the focus to deliver that world-class education for all our children. Our ambition was to establish a multiagency, person-centred system, from birth to the age of 25, that identified children’s needs early and focused on progress and outcomes.
These reforms gave vital support to more children, but, as has been recognised in your Lordships’ House, the problems they sought to address were complex and of long standing. For too many, the vision of the Children and Families Act is not yet a reality. On that score, I agree with many of the comments from the noble Lords, Lord Watson, Lord Addington and Lord Bilimoria. The vision that we set, on which there was a lot of cross-party support, has not become a reality for too many families.
That is why officials are working across government to review the SEND system. To assure the noble Lord, Lord Watson, it is a full, root-and-branch review. They are looking at ways to ensure the system delivers the high-quality, consistent support that should have been delivered by joining up health, care and education services. To that end, the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England are working closely with my department. They are working at pace, but these are complex issues. I am sure noble Lords would agree that it is more important to address them fully and get them right than to do so quickly. We welcome the scrutiny and challenge provided by the reports from the Education Select Committee and the National Audit Office, which will be taken into account in the review.
While the review is ongoing, we are continuing to build on what is working and improve what is not. I am pleased that the new Ofsted/Care Quality Commission inspection regime, which we introduced in 2015, has identified some really strongly performing areas, such as Portsmouth, Calderdale and Wiltshire. We also see improvement in areas that were initially found to have weaknesses, such as Middlesbrough, which recently had a strong revisit from the inspectors. These areas will have positively impacted on the experiences of the children and young people that we have talked about this evening, but I accept that this is a patchwork situation and we need to look at consistent provision across the country.
At the heart of the reforms was co-production, to ensure that children and young people with SEND and their parents and carers felt genuinely empowered, as my noble friend Lord Sterling pointed out in relation to parents’ involvement. Although I know that there are challenges around parental confidence in the system, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, mentioned, there are some fantastic examples of co-production in action. In Warrington, Ofsted and the CQC found that families are becoming increasingly influential in the design and implementation of plans and services across that local area. However, I accept that there is a patchwork nature to this provision.
To support this co-production, we are funding parent carer forums in every local area to ensure that they play a greater role in designing and commissioning local services. It is wonderful to hear of the role that noble Lords have played as parents to ensure the provision for their children and relatives. We are prioritising working with parents as the review progresses. The new Minister for Children and Families has already met parents to hear about their experiences.
We recognise the financial pressures that educational establishments and local authorities face. We are responding to this by investing £14 billion more in schools over the next three years to 2022-23, the biggest funding boost for a decade. This includes an additional £780 million to meet high-needs funding in 2020-21. Other years will be referenced in due course. This should support those with some of the most complex needs. It is a 12% increase in funding from the previous year, bringing the total high-needs budget to over £7 billion, to answer the queries from the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Watson, about the funding that is going into this matter. We have also invested a total of £365 million in expanding and improving special provision from 2018 to 2021 and opened 43 special free schools, with a further 48 in the pipeline and 37 currently being assessed.
In reference to the points made by my noble friend Lord Lexden, there is excellent provision in the independent sector. As I understand it, when an EHCP says that that is the specific provision for that child, the local authority should be delivering it, but we need to have those special places within the state-funded system so that they are available without having to go to the independent sector. However, the Government accept that additional funding will not in itself be sufficient to address pressures on the system, which was a theme of many noble Lords’ speeches. We must ensure that funding is spent fairly, efficiently and effectively, and that the support available is sustainable in the future. We are talking about young people’s lives, so it must be sustainable.
We are intent on avoiding the situation referenced in the moving story told by the noble Lord, Lord Mann. There are manifesto commitments regarding alternative provisions, but we need to avoid the scenarios that he described by having better provision and better support through EHCPs, and special educational needs support within schools, which is available to many children. About 11% of children are having that support but do not have an EHCP.
To answer the noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Addington, and other noble Lords, obviously the school workforce is a vital part of delivering this support, and workforce development is critical to closing that attainment gap and ensuring that children and young people with SEND fulfil their potential. Qualified teacher status is awarded to new teachers only if they can show appropriate teaching approaches to meet pupils’ individual needs. There are SENCOs in each school, each with a master’s-level qualification, and should be at least attaining the specific SENCO qualification. There is more to do in relation to this, but there are examples of good practice where special schools and mainstream schools in certain areas are working together to share best practice, to upskill the workforce within the mainstream, because most children with special educational needs are within the mainstream system.
We have worked with SEND sector organisations to develop resources to assist with the early identification of and support for children with SEND, including neurodiversity. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is aware, these resources are available on the SEND gateway. Between April 2018 and March 2020, we have provided £3.9 million to the Whole School SEND Consortium, to support schools to embed SEND into school improvement and equip the workforce to deliver high-quality teaching across all types of SEND. As many noble Lords will be aware, the consortium includes the British Dyslexia Association and the Autism Education Trust. Through a specific contract with the Autism Education Trust, we have trained up over a quarter of a million teachers, but I recognise that there is more to do.
On the vexed issue of off-rolling, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, in relation to Ofsted, this is a stronger part of the new framework for Ofsted. There is a strength and focus around this issue. We do not want to see this practice happening. There are now examples of schools in which Ofsted have identified this practice and therefore the school is requiring improvement, or is inadequate, as a result of off-rolling. This is a practice that the Government do not want to see happening. Regarding exclusions, we must not be nervous about saying that there are certain groups more likely to be excluded. We must address this. It is also a matter that is part of the inspection regime.
Many noble Lords raised the issue of appeals, and this is quite a nuanced issue. Yes, there is a high rate of parents being, to some degree, successful in those appeals. The percentage remains stable at around 1.6%, but because the number of plans has gone up, the number of appeals has been rising. That situation will be part of the review.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to assistive technologies. We recognise their potential to support pupils with special educational needs including dyslexia. Our edtech strategy, which was launched in April 2019, has identified accessibility and inclusion as one of five key areas of opportunity where technology can help drive a step change in support for these pupils.
On the point raised by my noble friend Lord Sterling, in our manifesto we have also committed to publishing a national strategy for disabled people before the end of this year. We are exploring multiple options for how we approach this, to ensure that there is a positive impact on disabled people across the country.
In relation to specific questions regarding the percentage of marks in certain qualifications for spelling and grammar, I will talk to my colleague, the right honourable Nick Gibb, about school standards, to fully understand how that might be impacting this group of students.
We are committed to improving the educational outcomes of all children and young people with special educational needs. The SEND review is an absolute priority for the Government. Debates such as the one we have had this evening are important for gathering information and views on the system. I am grateful for it and hope that noble Lords will continue to hold our feet to the fire. I expect to see much more of the rugged determination of, particularly, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, as we deal with matters that are so important to so many young people. We all wish to see a rapid closure of the attainment gap. It is a waste of talent if young people cannot access the support they need to fulfil their potential.
Fisheries Bill [HL]
Wednesday 4th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-II(a) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the second marshalled list - (3 Mar 2020)
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I do not propose to debate this at any length. When I tabled my opposition to Clause 6, I had not appreciated that my Amendment 49A, which we debated earlier, would have had the chance to have been debated today.
I am especially grateful that my noble friend the Minister has said that we can have a further discussion on the question of fisheries management plans. That would give me the opportunity to explore many of the issues. Therefore, I do not wish to pursue this, other than to say that I stand by the comments I made earlier that, in terms of stock levels and controlling the biomass, it is not sufficient to look at it purely in terms of sustainability. We need to look at the biomass in terms of maximum sustainable yield. We will have an opportunity to discuss that next time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to set out the intentions of the Government in this new provision in the Bill to produce fisheries management plans. We have already discussed various aspects and provisions of the plans, and I take this opportunity to highlight the fact that the requirement to produce these plans was not included in the previous fisheries Bill. Inclusion of this requirement demonstrates the Government’s commitment towards securing sustainable stocks and meeting the manifesto commitment on the matter. Fisheries management plans will help the United Kingdom’s aims to recover and maintain fish stocks to healthy levels, ensure we fish sustainably and offer the flexibility in our management approaches to deal with our complex fisheries.
Clause 6 requires the UK fisheries administrations to produce fisheries management plans as described in the joint fisheries statement and sets out the detail of what these plans must contain. The plans will directly contribute to the fisheries objectives in Clause 1. They will set out the detailed fisheries conservation measures necessary to manage specific fisheries and fish stocks. Each plan will set out the geographic area that it covers, the stock or stocks covered, and how its effectiveness will be monitored and reported.
Where we do not have enough scientific evidence to assess a stock’s MSY, the administration or administrations must include the steps they will take to obtain the scientific evidence required to establish sustainable harvest limits or explain why they do not intend to do so. This might, for instance, be if scientific advice indicates that a suitable proxy measure for assessing a stock’s sustainability can be used instead. For example, such an approach is used for North Sea lemon sole, which is a data-limited stock. A precautionary buffer is applied based on advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.
As I have said, I am very happy to have what I would call as technical a meeting as your Lordships wish it to be on the fisheries management plans. These plans will be the backbone of the technical aspects of fisheries management policy in the future. However, for this evening, I hope that my noble friend feels happy not to press her opposition to the clause.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
As I said, I am happy not to pursue this matter.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the list of changes in circumstances which are capable of being “relevant” from indicative to exhaustive.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group are tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Grantchester. They are, in the main, probing amendments. They follow on from the earlier group of amendments and concern the scope of powers to amend or depart from proposals in the joint fisheries statement.
As it stands, the Bill allows the fisheries policy authorities to depart from proposals in the joint fisheries statement if there is a change of circumstances. It goes on to say that the changes of circumstances include, but are not limited to, international obligations, actions by a territory outside the UK, scientific evidence, and evidence relating to the social, economic or environmental objectives. Amendments 59 and 72 tighten up that wording so that those are the only reasons for agreeing a change of circumstances, the reason being that quite a wide scope for change is already given in the joint fisheries statement, which is envisaged to be a longer-term planning document rather than one constantly under revision. Therefore, we believe that the original wording is too loose and could allow other, extraneous factors to come into play.
Our Amendment 60, in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester, goes one stage further and removes international obligations altogether as a reason for a change of circumstances. Our concern is that the negotiations with the EU 27 and other external coastal fishing areas will be taking place this year and in future years, and those international obligations could be used as a reason to revisit the joint fisheries statement and abandon our commitment to the sustainability and climate change objectives and the other important objectives in Clause 1.
During our debates on the Bill, all noble Lords have been concerned that a good set of objectives in Clause 1 will end up being watered down by the economic pressures of the trade deals and that we will end up back at square one with something not dissimilar to the common fisheries policy, which has, rightly, been discredited. Therefore, we tabled this amendment to explore under what circumstances international obligations might be used as a reason to amend the joint fisheries statement.
Finally, Amendments 62, 63 and 73 tackle the rather vague reason for a change of circumstances being
“available evidence relating to the social, economic or environmental elements of sustainable development.”
We felt that phrase could mean anything. Changes in these elements relating to fishing management will happen constantly. New reports and statistics about progress in these areas will appear regularly. At what point could this be used to promote a review of the scheme, and is this how we envisage it would work? Instead, we have proposed a much tighter phrase, which is to limit reviews of the joint fisheries statement to resulting from
“catastrophic events which have an impact on fisheries management or the marine environment.”
The previous wording of the Bill did not have the reference to changes in socioeconomic circumstances as a reason for non-compliance with the JFC. Instead the Explanatory Notes listed catastrophic events as a reason for revisiting it, so we have taken this wording and added it to this version of the Bill. Does this not make more sense? Obviously we do not want to put a complete straitjacket on the wording of the JFS, but those drawing up fisheries management plans and those employed in the industry need certainty to plan and invest, otherwise there is a danger of constant lobbying to change the provisions and much confusion among those tasked with implementing the plans.
I hope noble Lords will see the sense in what I say, including the Minister. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome these amendments and support them. I have put my name to Amendment 62, which is about my genuine concern—I will not go over it again at this time of the evening—that somehow social and economic elements will be used to trump a sustainability issue, even if it is not the will of the present Government or of the Minister. It just makes me uncomfortable, and I would much prefer this whole area to be tighter, as with the other amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which she has explained. It is coming back to this area again of ensuring that we do not prejudice the long term by making life easier politically in the short term.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and indeed the noble Lord for the points they have made. This gives me the opportunity to set out the reasoning behind the ability of fisheries policy authorities to diverge from policies in the joint fisheries statement and from policies in the fisheries management plan, in the narrow circumstances where relevant considerations apply, and to take a different approach for stocks for which it would not be appropriate to gather data to calculate their MSY.
Starting with Amendments 59 and 63, it is clear that fisheries management plans will need to evolve over time to retain their efficacy and feasibility. While the list presented in the clause in question covers some of the major changes that we could predict might take place, other circumstances may bring to light fundamental factors to consider in updating fisheries management plans. This legislation aims to be future-proof and flexible enough to allow dynamic, evidence-based policy-making.
The premise behind this amendment is that the fisheries administrations could use this clause to somehow water down plans. However, it would also hinder their ability to strengthen plans in the light of changing circumstances. It would limit those circumstances under which fisheries administrations might consider amending, revoking or developing new fisheries management plans, or to set out a plan described in a different way from that initially proposed in a joint fisheries statement, to one or more of four exclusive reasons that we believe will severely limit their ability to react to new or emerging issues. Furthermore, preventing fisheries administrations making use of new economic, social or environmental evidence as a trigger to amend or replace fisheries management plans, and by inference informing the development of new fisheries plans, is contrary to the core principle of evidence-based policy-making.
The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness puts the threshold for using evidence at that relating only to “catastrophic events”, which would seem extremely high and to relate, one hopes, to very rare occasions. I have reflected on this and feel that it would mean that fisheries administrations would have to wait to react to events, rather than be proactive and use all new evidence potentially to head off a catastrophic event. I am concerned that the amendment creates an unacceptable risk that our fisheries administrations would be unhelpfully bound by what was foreseen as necessary at the point at which the joint fisheries statement was published, rather than having the flexibility to react to changing circumstances or moving stocks that could result in environmental, economic or social harm that was not yet catastrophic.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Before the Minister sits down, may I ask a simple question: does he think that the phrase “international obligations” means international negotiations such as I described, which would include the ongoing regular annual negotiations? Or do “international obligations” cover some wider commitment to international law? If that phrase means the former—the negotiations that go on from time to time—that is quite troubling, because that is where we got into difficulties with the common fisheries policy and other issues. We had our own sustainability principles, and then we traded them away, because that was the outcome of the trade negotiations. Before I comment more widely on what the Minister has said, I am just wondering what that phrase means.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
So that I am not anything other than very clear with the noble Baroness, I shall read from the Bill: in Clause 48, on interpretation, an
“‘international obligation of the United Kingdom’ includes any obligation that arises or may arise under an international agreement or arrangement to which the United Kingdom is a party”.
That is the definition.
Lord Teverson
Does that include the 5,000 agreements that the Minister talked about in order to negate one of our earlier amendments?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I think I am consistent, in that there are many treaties that do not relate to fisheries, and I am consistent in saying that this is in relation to our international fisheries obligations. With the other amendment that we discussed, the drafting could have involved us in all the 14,000 treaties—I think it was 14,000—whereas here I believe it is distinctly involved in and engaged with the arrangements for fisheries within our international obligations.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Just to pick up on that point, the definition to which the Minister has pointed us is about international agreements or arrangements
“to which the United Kingdom is a party”.
That could mean anything or everything that we deal with and negotiate on an international basis, and it continues to raise concerns about the outcome of those negotiations, and whether such considerations will trump our more aspirational objectives, which we agreed in Clause 1. We may come back to that. I continue to have a sense of disquiet about the implications —as I do about the phraseology around the word “socioeconomic”, which we shall not bottom out now; we have debated it several times. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that we are in danger of trading the long-term benefit to the marine environment for short-term advantage. Whatever the good will of the Government may be, some of that practicality and necessity will, sadly, get in the way of some of our more profound objectives.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the other factors. He talked about dynamic policy-making and reacting to new emerging issues. It just feels as if this will be a moveable feast and will not provide the stability that the fishing community and the devolved Administrations would welcome. I am worried that the wording provides a little too much flexibility.
I quite like the “catastrophic event” phrase: it was the Government’s phrase in the first place, and I just quoted it back. I would have thought there was some merit in adopting it anyway, because such things will be factors. There could be extreme weather changes, or other circumstances could have an impact that the Government would want to respond to, but which would not be covered under the other terminology in the Bill. This is all a bit unsatisfactory, but obviously I am not going to pursue it at this point, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grantchester
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes paragraph (a) to probe whether the powers to amend or revoke a fisheries management plan can be used to implement the outcome of negotiations with the EU27.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
If I may detain the House for a quick moment, I thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch for pursuing this issue further with the Minister. I refer back to the probing done by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on how far Ministers in the Department for International Trade will be abiding by the objectives mentioned in the Bill in their negotiations over fisheries trade with the EU. I just make that point, and I look forward to the Minister’s letter in that regard.
Lord Teverson
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment brings an element of devolution into England’s fisheries plans, and introduces consultation with fisheries’ stakeholders.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I repeat my declaration of interest as co-chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership, as one of my amendments mentions local nature partnerships.
I was grateful to the Minister for his letter of 4 March, which I think was to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. In the passage dealing with “Stock definition areas”, the Minister stated:
“One of the matters the Department will consider is whether and how it could take a more regionalised approach to quota management.”
I welcome that statement very strongly. One of my aims with this group of amendments is to try to understand what is in the Minister’s, and indeed the Government’s, mind.
We are constantly reminded that the Bill has been knitted together by the various devolved authorities along with Defra and the Secretary of State. That is great: the devolved authorities can go off and agree their authority in terms of how fisheries management works. However, in England we do not have devolution at all; the whole of England is treated as one. I feel strongly that that advantage of devolution in the rest of the UK should be allowed to happen within England as well. I do not see why England should be at a disadvantage here. There are very different fisheries; even within south-west England there are significant differences, let alone further along the south coast, and certainly once you get to the North Sea. There is a very wide range of fisheries, and there will be a very wide range of fisheries plans.
I am sure the Minister will be able to pick holes in this amendment in all sorts of ways, but what I am trying to say is that there needs to be a method of devolution within England around fisheries management in how the industry operates that goes beyond bog-standard consultation, which, to be honest, is very limited in its effect on the way that it works. What I have suggested—I am not saying that this suggestion is perfect; I am just looking to the Government to take the issue seriously and come back to what has been suggested in that letter—is a way to a devolved situation.
I suggest that the major ports should have an advisory board—I am not saying that it should be an executive board, so I am being very modest in my aspirations—that should be able to have a major influence over the management plans. In fact, in many ways the advisory board should be the initiator of the local or regional strategy. It should then meet to go through the issues and make suggestions to the Secretary of State before the draft management plan comes out. When the draft management plan has been produced, the advisory board would then have a second bite at considering that and making recommendations. This is a process, and the amendment is very process driven.
I am trying to present a possible model of a way to involve and get expertise in a real sense—not just in a passive consultation—to make sure that these management plans are workable, have real buy-in from those that are affected by and have to operate them, and include the organs of the state, whether it be Natural England, the MMO or Defra. These should be able to participate in the process as well.
I am looking for the Minister to set out how we are going to achieve this in England. This will makes a difference not just to the fishery but also—as we have talked about so much—to the local communities, particularly coastal communities, which are affected. This allows that wider dimension to affect the local benefit of these fisheries plans.
One of the possible methods of devolution is already established. IFCAs are already responsible for management in quite a broad sense, not just in fisheries but in conservation more generally up to the six-mile limit. There are local fisheries all along the English coastline that operate within the six-mile limit. These organisations are already well represented by stakeholders, from local authorities, NGOs and the fishing community. Could we not use them to be able to have a strong power —in fact, executive power is what I am suggesting—over their own local fisheries? By doing so I believe we will have much greater buy-in and much more effective management plans.
I am not sure what the principle of this Government is regarding devolution at this stage, but I get the impression that they are keen to push power downwards where appropriate. I feel this is an area where that could be done successfully, but I stress again that this is a model and not necessarily the definitive answer. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, particularly Amendments 98 and 99. It is an interesting idea to have the IFCAs involved in determining fisheries’ opportunities.
There does not seem to be much respect for the MMO among smaller fishermen. In our committee last year, for instance, we heard complaints that it tended to take a short-term view of micromanaging individual small fishermen’s quota—that is, the quota for the under-10 boats. As opposed to issuing an annual quota, which would let them decide when and how they should be managed, the MMO issued weekly or monthly quotas, which did not go down well.
Since then, I have spoken to fishermen operating in Cornwall, south Devon and south Dorset. While I have no sense of the veracity of what I heard, it is clear that respect is pretty low. One said: “The MMO do short term quota fixes, sometimes on a daily basis. People go out and come back and find their quota has changed.” Another said: “With the new catch app, a skipper has to compulsorily weigh up his 20 species of fish before he lands, while meanwhile the coastguard says, ‘Do not work the app while steering your boat.’ Who do you obey?”. The last one is pretty damning—again, I am just repeating quotes; I have no idea about the truth of them—“The MMO is always looking for ways to prosecute the under-10s industry, which is already on its knees.”
As I say, I do not know where the blame lies for the breakdown in communication and trust, but clearly something needs to change. It might be worth looking at the more democratic and wider interests of the IFCAs—as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was saying—to see whether they could be involved in the setting and monitoring of the inshore fleet quota.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, which are linked and would bring transparency and accountability to the process, as set out clearly by my noble friend Lord Teverson. As he said, in the absence of devolution in England, setting up an English advisory board would allow consultation on England’s fisheries plans with fisheries stakeholders.
On our first day in Committee, we heard much about the consultation that has taken place with the devolved Administration and the agreements reached with them. Some of your Lordships, including me, felt that English fishermen were being undersold. We heard that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly agreed with the relevant clauses in the Bill, but we did not hear that the view of English fishermen and women had received quite the same input. Setting up an English advisory board and other advisory boards to oversee fisheries management plans would bring some accountability and transparency into the process and help English fisheries receive parity with their Scottish and Welsh compatriots.
The list of those to be involved would ensure that not only major fishing ports but smaller ports in a region would have a voice in how the fisheries management plans were drawn up and implemented. Although Amendment 65 is long, it is comprehensive and would ensure accountability, devolution and representation for the English fisheries. This is long overdue. I look forward to hearing from the Minister just how this might be achieved.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, one of the puzzles in this Bill is getting to grips with the relative powers of, and interaction between, the Secretary of State, Parliament and the devolved Administrations. Into this mix, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has introduced a measure of devolution for England and its regions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for sharing his comments with the Committee.
In his Amendments 64 and 65, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has made a strong case for creating advisory boards for major fishing ports in England, giving the power of determination for fisheries operating within the six-mile limit to the relevant local inshore fisheries and conservation authority, and ensuring consultation with local bodies on matters that will affect them. It might even be said that, subject to consideration by the devolved Administrations, similar processes should be followed in the devolved nations.
It does not seem unreasonable for us to use this Bill to examine which level of government is best suited for the various activities and how best to ensure a level of local decision-making in England. At the very least, the Bill should make sure that in formulating policies the authorities engage properly with all relevant stakeholders, including port authorities, inshore fishers and so on.
In his Amendments 91, 98 and 99, the noble Lord distinguishes between the UK’s six-mile limit and its exclusive economic zone. He quite is right to challenge the Bill on its localism provisions.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank noble Lords for this short debate on a topic of real interest, but I believe that we can cover elsewhere the concerns that have been raised.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his amendments, which would involve a proposed English advisory board and other boards in the process of preparing fisheries management plans. Such boards, as well as the IFCAs, would be involved in the determination of UK fishing opportunities. I understand the intention of noble Lords fully to involve local stakeholders in England in decisions that affect them, such as the development of fisheries management plans and determination of fishing opportunities.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked how we would achieve this. We intend to collaborate closely with local fishermen and stakeholders, who will often have the best understanding of their area. However, a statutory advisory board is not the most effective way to achieve such collaboration.
It is a long-established policy for the Government to consult widely on the use of statutory powers. Our provisions for fisheries management plans already require consultation through Clause 8 and Schedule 1. Fisheries policy authorities are required to consult with interested persons and have regard to their views when publishing the final plans. These interested persons will catch a wider range of stakeholders than those who would be required to sit on the English advisory boards according to this amendment.
I know that noble Lords are aware that fisheries management is complex. Our provisions for fisheries management plans need to have sufficient flexibility in design to ensure that we achieve our aim of fishing our stocks sustainably, wherever they live in our waters. Many stocks targeted by local fishermen in England are not restricted to their local area and, depending upon location, may be shared with devolved Administrations or neighbouring coastal states. Fisheries management plans will need to deal with specific geographic coverage of stocks. Plans must cover both inshore and offshore areas, possibly at the same time. They should not be restricted to administrative boundaries or ports.
The amendment would establish new bodies with defined formal responsibilities in the development and implementation of fisheries management plans. Public and private bodies, along with groups of individuals, would be required to field representatives to these advisory boards. The operation of the boards as set out could require a significant resource commitment from their members, and I do not think it is appropriate for the UK Government to place formal obligations on private individuals joining a board dealing in fisheries management. Local authorities would be given the responsibility to resolve any conflicts in finalising the membership of advisory boards, which seems inappropriate for a local authority.
The IFCAs already have sustainable fisheries duties under the Marine and Coastal Access Act and are required to consult formally on management measures. IFCAs produce management plans for species within their districts, working with local fishermen to achieve the best outcome. Each IFCA comprises members from relevant local authorities, general members representing local organisations, and statutory agencies. Requiring an IFCA to work with the proposed advisory board that itself will have representatives from some of the bodies on the IFCA has the potential to create conflicts of interest and operational problems. Adding this responsibility will create a further burden on the IFCAs themselves and local organisations.
The UK Government support last October’s Future of Our Inshore Fisheries conference organised by Seafish. Fishermen and stakeholders discussed themes such as greater collaboration and the devolution of decision-making responsibility. I highlight that Amendment 64 as drafted would give boards statutory responsibility to prepare and publish plans. We cannot pass the responsibility for developing statutory policy that imposes legal requirements on the Government and relevant authorities to an advisory board.
Amendments 91 and 98 would include the IFCAs in Clause 24—the clause that addresses the determination of fishing opportunities—and Amendment 99 would include the advisory body as a consultee on the determination of fishing opportunities. Clause 24 sets out the duties that will apply to the Secretary of State when determining UK fishing opportunities. It does not relate to the subsequent allocation of these opportunities to the fisheries administrations or to their distribution to the fishing industry. The aim of this clause is to ensure that, as far as possible, the interests of the whole of the UK are taken into account when the UK’s fishing opportunities are set.
I accept that the quota system is complex. However, enabling the IFCAs to determine fishing opportunities separately alongside the existing allocation methods could lead to confusion and inconsistency in allocation and put the UK at risk of breaching its international obligations and sustainability commitments.
If the objective is to enable English IFCAs to manage certain parts of the English quota pot, this is currently done by the Marine Management Organisation for vessels under 10 metres. The MMO manages a system of closures in English waters to help manage, for example, the cod effort in the eastern Channel. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said about the lack of regard in which they are held. We note what was said; we have other information.
Inshore fisheries and conservation authorities play a key role in the management of inshore fisheries and can already make by-laws under Section 156 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to limit the amount of sea fisheries resources a person or vessel may take in a specified period, and the amount of time a person or vessel may spend fishing for or taking sea fisheries resources in a specified period.
To provide reassurance around the need for statutory engagement with stakeholders in the setting of fishing opportunities in relation to Amendment 99, in England, Defra and the MMO already regularly engage fishing industry representatives, and those with a wider interest, on fishing opportunities through a number of different routes. This engagement starts when the scientific advice arrives ahead of the annual negotiations. Industry is also engaged and consulted when changes are proposed to the allocation of fishing opportunities. Engagement continues through the subsequent management over the fishing season. In the UK Government’s fisheries White Paper, we committed to additional quota gained through negotiation being allocated in a different way. Engagement with the devolved Administrations on the intra-UK allocation has begun. Defra conducted a call for evidence in relation to the allocation in England last year, with more engagement planned.
With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is reassured that our fisheries management plans and approach to quota setting will provide sufficient opportunity for appropriate and local engagement, and so will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson
How do I reply to the Minister on that one? If I am really honest about it, what I hear is “We would quite like to keep it as it is at the minute, all we want to do is go through our normal consultation exercise and that will be okay.” I was quite encouraged by the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, which began to talk about regional devolution—just on quota management—but I did not really hear anything from the noble Baroness the Minister that suggested that the Government would develop that idea further.
On the arguments about forcing people to be on an advisory board, you would have a queue of people—in fact, the problem would be that the queue would be worse than a queue in a hospital at the height of the NHS crisis. Lots of people would want to participate in this, and for good reason: they want to do good for their region, they want to get this right and they want to stimulate the local economy and have greater authority over these fishing plans.
I feel severely disappointed. As I have said, this model is not perfect but, if you are going to have management plans that work, you have to base them around the industry, and the industry operates from ports. That is why you have to base this at ports. Sure, some of the same fisheries relate to different ports but, on the whole, they are adjacent. Often, even close ones—certainly the fisheries out of Brixham, Newlyn and Plymouth—are very different. I have had representations from the Cornwall and Scilly LEP for it to be sensibly and actively involved somehow, rather than in the normal run of consultation. There is a big difference between consultation and devolution. What we are looking for here is real devolution. In the model that I have put forward—perfect though it may not be—I have not made it so it has statutory power; I have tried to make it moderate and reasonable.
I would really like the Minister to develop the undertaking that was given to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in that letter and to think about this further. This Bill could really make a difference. At the moment, I feel that all the Bill does is create more of the same. There is so much that we could do to really make a difference here. I am sure we would agree to most of that, yet we have a framework Bill that pretty well keeps everything as it is. All is does is replace the mechanisms of the common fisheries policy with something else; it does not really act to a greater good than we have at the moment. These are the sorts of things we could do but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teverson
“( ) The Secretary of State must, in consultation with the devolved authorities, publish a report annually that details the state of all stocks for which there are fisheries management plans.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that there is a report on the state of the stocks each year, not every three years.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I am sure we will deal with this very quickly: there may be a misunderstanding here. One of the most important things if we are to have a sustainable fishery is that we understand the state of the stocks on an annual basis, as we do at the moment. We have cited many times this evening and on Monday the proportion of the stocks that are or are not meeting MSY within the common fisheries policy. I just want to be assured that there will be something similar each year, certainly for those precious stocks and, I hope, for some others as well—I am looking to the Government to guide me here—so we can understand, as Parliament and as the industry, what the states of the stocks are each year. I cannot understand why this could not be the case if we have any sort of quota allocation or annual international negotiation with adjacent coastal states. I am looking to the Minister to clarify this and to assure me that we will keep that regular feedback on the state of the stocks. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for tabling this amendment. He raises an important point about the need for the most up-to-date scientific evidence on the state of stocks to aid planning and quota allocation. As previous debates established, there are a number of different timescales resulting from the provisions in the Bill and it is important that we somehow manage to mesh them effectively. One of them, the reporting of the state of stocks, is currently a three-year timescale, whereas this amendment quite rightly proposes a timescale of one year.
We feel that there are strong arguments for this. Given that quota negotiations and fishing opportunity determinations are due to be made annually, and they are meant to draw upon the latest and best scientific advice, it makes sense for the stock reports to coincide with this timescale. Given that the Secretary of State has the opportunity to make mid-term revisions to fisheries management plans, access to the latest data would provide the best possible motive for change. We would go one stage further and hope that these stock reports could be officially collated by Defra and the devolved Administrations and made publicly available. Given that we are moving towards real-time stock measurement and given that the scientific processes we are putting in place will be much more real-time and up to date, I do not think that this is too onerous; therefore we support this amendment and hope the Minister agrees.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his Amendment 75, which requires annual reports on the state of
“stocks for which there are fisheries management plans.”
Existing annual publications provide information on the state of our fish stocks. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee publishes the UK biodiversity indicators annually on behalf of Defra and the devolved Administrations. These indicators include two covering sustainable fisheries: one shows the percentage of quota stocks harvested sustainably, and the other the percentage of quota stocks whose biomass is at such a level to maintain full reproductive capacity. These indicators are national statistics and part of the UK’s commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity to report on our progress towards its goals and targets—the Aichi targets. Our indicators on sustainable fisheries show data back to 1990.
The Government published their 25-year environment plan in 2018, in which they committed to develop a new set of indicators to report on the state of our natural assets, and to publish an annual report on their progress in meeting the goals and targets set out in the plan. The first annual report, published in May 2019, had an indicator on sustainable fisheries alongside a narrative setting out how we are progressing towards our broader goal for sustainable fisheries. The indicator and narrative will be updated in the 2020 report due in the spring. The evolution of the Fisheries Bill and the introduction of our provisions for fisheries management plans means we will need to reflect and consult more widely with stakeholders as it may be more appropriate for each plan to contain its own reporting framework rather than for us to do a single annual report.
There are also some devolution implications arising from the amendment which cause concern. It would commit the Secretary of State to report annually on any stocks in fisheries management plans published by the devolved Administrations covering their waters only. The devolved Administrations would determine how and when they report on the state of stocks covered by their fisheries management plans. In addition, we have enhanced the transparency framework set out in the Bill by committing to provide triennial reviews of the joint fisheries statement and the implementation of fisheries management plans. There are stocks for which we do not currently have sufficient data to assess their status, and we have made provision in the Bill to collect further evidence to determine sustainable levels. The proposed three-year reporting cycle for fisheries management plans will set out our progress for these data-poor stocks.
I am very happy to have further discussions with the noble Lord if he thinks there are any loose ends, but with the existing annual publications—he is probably aware of them already—and the requirements in the Bill, we are asking the question that we all want to know the answer to, which is: are we making progress and is this working? With what we have already and what is planned in the Bill, his aspirations are covered. On that basis, I hope he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson
Whenever the Minister gives such a comprehensive answer, I get more worried. This was an amendment where I was expecting an answer such as, “Lord Teverson, on this, don’t worry. We’re just going to carry on. You will know each year how many of these stocks are at MSY and how many aren’t.” That is the core of what I was trying to get to. I am even more concerned because devolution means that we might not all be on the same page in reporting our fish stocks as a nation, so I ask the question: at the end of 2021, when we are outside the common fisheries policy, will Defra be able to give us or anybody else who wants to know the percentage of stocks that are meeting MSY, just as it does now through the common fisheries policy? Will we know that?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Let me repeat what I said. The existing annual publications include one showing the percentage of quota stocks harvested sustainably and another showing the percentage of quota stocks whose biomass is at such a level as to maintain full reproductive capacity. I will be happy to look at those myself, but I am afraid that I do not have them with me. However, not only does the Bill refer to reporting; annual publications already exist.
The noble Lord is worried when I give a comprehensive answer but if I have read this correctly, there is an existing annual publication. Perhaps the noble Lord has got me worried now, but I have no doubt about this. This is published as a part of our indicators on behalf of Defra and the devolved Administrations. I understand the point about the references to the devolved Administrations in the Bill. The task for Defra Ministers, which is an interesting one, is to work very productively with the devolved Administrations, which we are. There is no suggestion that matters which are devolved are no longer going to be devolved; they are absolutely part of the devolved settlement. Whether or not that proves to be an inconvenience for some, that is the settlement which is enshrined, and we will continue to work extremely collaboratively.
Lord Teverson
If the current publications are going to continue as they are, that is probably the answer, but I will check that myself. I thank the Minister for coming back on that point.
More seriously, I accept his point entirely about devolution, and I know that there are problems in other areas. For example, you get only the English figure for fuel poverty because Scotland defines it in a different way. Maximum effort should be made regarding the state of fish stocks because clearly, they are shared between England, Scotland and Wales. There should be a uniform measurement that we can understand, because this situation is different. Fish move across the devolved national boundaries and their stocks are absolutely fundamental to the health of our marine environment. Again, I accept entirely what the Minister has said about devolution and we are not trying to change that, but there really does need to be co-ordination in this area. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“( ) The master, the owner and the charterer (if any) are not each guilty of an offence if a fishing boat contravenes subsection (1) or (2) as a result of—(a) danger to life or property, or(b) any other reason prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that a foreign fishing boat is not committing an offence if it enters or remains in British waters due to conditions presenting a danger to life or property.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I hope that this will be a fairly brief discussion. Amendment 76 has been tabled to seek clarification about the circumstances in which foreign fishing boats might legitimately enter UK waters without a licence. The kind of circumstances we had envisaged were during a storm, if there is an illness on board or when sailing through UK waters to reach a more distant fishing ground. This topic was raised at a meeting with the Minister last week and we were offered assurances by officials that appropriate international agreements and conventions would trump this Bill in the event of an emergency incident. I hope that the Minister will be able use this opportunity to clarify the conventions, how they would apply in these new circumstances, and the legal advice that he has received in relation to this matter.
We appreciate that the criminal offence set out in the Bill relates only to fishing in UK waters without a licence, rather than using UK waters for transit or an emergency landing. However, presumably it is not unusual for foreign vessels which are not licensed to enter UK waters to cast their nets as close to the EEZ boundary as possible. If a vessel were to be swept off course by changing weather, could that be construed by a patrol boat as unauthorised fishing?
I accept that these are hypotheticals, but there are potentially difficult times ahead for policing our waters. We need to recognise that while we will have robust enforcement in our waters, emotions can sometimes run high when it comes to perceived incursions. It is vital that there be a responsible approach which puts safety first, while ensuring that all foreign vessels understand the implications of the licensing regime we are proposing to introduce and do not flout them without recognising the consequences. I therefore beg to move the amendment.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, this is a really important issue and one that we need to clarify. I am sure that there are international obligations to do this, but I would be very interested to hear what they are. The noble Baroness raises some really important points about the fact that at sea, things can get difficult and emotional. We saw the incidents in the Baie de Seine last year or the year before, so we have to be very clear and careful about some of these things.
One thing I want to point out, which the Minister will be completely aware of, is that we sometimes envision an EEZ where foreign vessels have to stay on one side and British ones on the other; but under international convention, as long as they are steaming and not fishing, they are absolutely allowed to go through international waters. It is important to remember in this debate that it is not all about keeping foreign fishing vessels out of the UK EEZ; they are perfectly entitled to be there, not necessarily in territorial waters but between 12 miles and the median line, or 200 nautical miles. They are entirely allowed to steam through there as long as they do not fish, and we should remind people of that.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her amendment. This again touches on an issue that I am sure we can all agree is of great importance. The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 has special provisions for assisting vessels in distress. These provisions allow for any UK or foreign vessel that is wrecked, stranded or in distress at any place on or near the coast of the United Kingdom or any tidal water within UK waters to receive any assistance required. In addition, Articles 17 and 18 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea allow for the right of innocent passage, which applies to all ships of all states, to territorial seas——between 0 and 12 nautical miles—and to the exclusive economic zone, which is between 12 and 200 nautical miles, or the median line. Passage in this instance means navigation through the territorial sea, anchoring or stopping in territorial waters in cases of force majeure or distress or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft in danger or distress.
For example, in poor weather, foreign vessels can stop fishing and shelter behind a headland to escape the worst of the wind and waves. According to the MMO, it is a common occurrence, especially in east and south-western areas and in Northern Ireland waters, to allow vessels safe navigation and passage. Through this existing legislation, we have a duty to provide shelter in our waters and in our ports so that vessels may deal with injuries, replenish their provisions and refuel; and also to allow them safe transit through our waters to reach more distant fishing grounds. Therefore, foreign vessels that need to access UK waters to get to their fishing grounds, or where there is a concern over danger to life or property, will continue to be able to do so. Any further exceptions will be agreed in international arrangements or set out in vessel licence conditions. This is already provided for in Clause 12(1).
I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation, but I regret that the second part of the amendment, which allows the Secretary of State to prescribe other reasons by regulation, is rather broad and potentially could be a catch-all. Additionally, as drafted, the breadth and ambiguity could cause challenges within the devolution settlements, depending on how broadly or narrowly the reasons were interpreted. I believe that the matter that this amendment relates to is covered in legislation already. With this explanation, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the Minister for that. It is useful to have all that restated. My only other point is that things will change with the new licensing arrangement. The last thing we want is for foreign vessel owners to put their own interpretation on how this will work, so the more we restate it and communicate it very clearly to all concerned, the less scope there will be for other people to try to misinterpret it. I do not wish to pursue this any further. I thank the Minister and I therefore beg to withdraw my amendment.