House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I would like to make a short statement. Last night I received a letter from the Chair of the Procedure Committee giving the Committee’s views on a new system for remote Divisions in the House on a temporary basis. The Chair of the Committee notes that the Committee was satisfied with the assurances it has been given about the security of the system, following extensive testing by the Parliamentary Digital Service. I have also received confirmation that Parliament’s Information Authority is content with the proposed system.
With that in mind, I believe we are now in a position to take this historic, yet temporary, next step to put remote voting into action. I am therefore authorising the use of this system of remote voting under paragraph (1) of the relevant temporary order. Further guidance will be made available, and I will make a further statement, before the first such Division. I remind colleagues that, as with other aspects of our current temporary arrangements, there may be some technical hitches as the new system beds in.
I would like to pay tribute to House staff, the Digital Service and the Committee for their work in making this possible and for working with Members and the Whips’ Offices to help ensure that Members had the opportunity to test the system and understand how it operates.
I remind colleagues that a secret ballot is taking place online today for the Chairs of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and the Committee on Standards. The ballot will close at 2 pm. Members will have received an email to their main parliamentary email with a secure link to the ballot.
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
I am proud that we are one of the leading countries in the world for LGBT rights. The UK will host an international LGBT conference, chaired by Nick Herbert. The theme is “Safe to be me”. It will focus on asking countries to tackle the persecution of LGBT people, including ending violence and discrimination.
Robert Largan [V]
The Government have a strong record on LGBT rights, especially the introduction of equal marriage, which I am proud to have campaigned for. We have come a long way, but there is still work to be done. Can my right hon. Friend tell me why a married monogamous gay couple living in High Peak cannot donate blood or plasma, including for the ongoing and vital covid-19 trial?
Elizabeth Truss
I appreciate that many gay and bisexual men want to contribute to the efforts to fight this virus. The rules that specify the conditions for donating blood are from the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs. I am taking up this matter with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to see what changes could be made.
Dehenna Davison [V]
We have seen numerous reports that the covid lockdown is having a disproportionately negative impact on the LGBT+ community, here in Bishop Auckland and right across our country, particularly with regard to mental health, domestic abuse and homelessness. With the International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia coming up on 17 May, what are the Government doing to ensure that LGBT+ people are receiving the support needed throughout the covid crisis?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We are ensuring that LGBT people get proper support during the covid crisis, including health support. In March, I extended the contract of Dr Michael Brady as our national adviser on LGBT healthcare. He is instrumental in ensuring that support is provided for LGBT people during this pandemic.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab) [V]
Owing to the coronavirus pandemic, gender identity clinics in England have had to reduce their services. While it is understandable that hospitals prioritise their services during this crisis, can the Minister assure the House that trans people will still be able to access the gender identity services they need during the crisis?
Elizabeth Truss
We absolutely want to ensure that all LGBT people are able to secure that support during the crisis. That is why we have extended the contract of Dr Michael Brady, and where we are able to provide those services we are ensuring that we do. I will follow up on the specific issue my hon. Friend raises with Dr Michael Brady to ensure that those services are available.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
Since 2010, there has been a 31% increase in girls’ entries to science, technology, engineering and maths A-levels in England, and a 34% increase in the number of women accepted on to full-time STEM undergraduate courses in the UK. Increasing the number of women in STEM industries is vital for our country’s economic success and also for equality of opportunity.
Dean Russell [V]
In Watford we have incredible, inspirational women and girls across the area. Watford girls school, for example, does incredible work in this space. How are we are supporting women, including those who are learning at school at the moment, into STEM roles, so that we can continue to showcase how Britain is playing a leading global role in science for all?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is still the case that women make up only 25% of those employed in manufacturing and 30% of those in information technology. We need more women in those fields to use their amazing talents. We are committed to removing the barriers to success for women and to celebrating those who have achieved, such as Ruth Amos of StairSteady, who has invented new areas of engineering, which we should continue to celebrate.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
As we turn the tide on covid-19, I want to ensure that the Cabinet Office equalities hub focuses on the evidence, and that everyone in the UK has their opportunity and does not face discrimination or barriers to success.
David Johnston [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for that statement. Does she agree that, although they are not in the Equality Act 2010, we should have a firm focus on social background and social mobility, so that it is not the school someone went to, the family they come from or the area they grew up in that determines their life chances?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are restructuring the equalities hub so that it covers areas such as social background and geography. It will put world-class analysis and research at its heart, and I am proud that both the Department for International Trade and the equalities hub were named among the top 75 employers by the social mobility employer index, which I know my hon. Friend established.
Caroline Ansell [V]
Education is of course a key driver of social mobility—people would expect me to say no less, as a teacher myself. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking all the teachers and headteachers in Eastbourne, who are doing such a tremendous job looking after and educating the children of our key workers, particularly at Shinewater Primary School? Will she also outline what work the Equalities Office is doing with the Department for Education to ensure that those disadvantaged pupils in our schools do not suffer as a result of these very necessary school closures?
Mr Speaker
Order. Minister, can you pick out a question from that? We cannot continue like that; we have to get through the questions.
Elizabeth Truss
Let me put on the record my thanks to all the teachers across the country who are doing a brilliant job keeping our children educated using the latest technology. We are doing all we can to ensure that no child, whatever their background, is left behind during this crisis. We have already committed more than £100 million to boost remote learning, and we are funding access to IT devices and software, focused on the most disadvantaged.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
A universal basic income is not the best way to deliver social equality because it is not targeted at those who need it most. In response to the covid-19 outbreak, the Government set out a substantial package of targeted measures to provide support to people affected by the coronavirus, which can be delivered quickly and effectively through existing systems.
Patrick Grady [V]
The issue is, though, that people are still falling through the cracks. Does the Minister not accept that, from an equalities perspective, the best way to stop that is to take a universal approach? That is why the First Minister of Scotland has said that, increasingly, a universal basic income is an idea whose time has come. Instead of rejecting it out of hand, will the Government not consult with devolved Administrations, the relevant all-party parliamentary group and other interested expert organisations to see how a guaranteed minimum income could be made to work?
Kemi Badenoch
I am afraid that we disagree on this issue. While we are happy to continue the debate, the fact is that flat-rate payments make no allowance for additional help to cope with variable essential living costs, and fail to target those who need support, such as disabled people and lone parents. This universal way of providing support is not going to work well within our existing welfare system.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
I am interested in this outright dismissal of a universal basic income, and in how, where and when this decision was reached. Given that those who will benefit the most from a UBI, contrary to what the Minister said, are the very people her Department is supposed to be fighting for, did she lose the argument or did she fail in her duty to advise her colleagues on what a difference a universal basic income could make to social equality?
Kemi Badenoch
I am not sure why the hon. Lady has chosen to take that stance. The fact is that many, many respected people think that a universal basic income is not what is right for this country. It lacks the flexibility to respond to changes in income—unlike universal credit—it is less redistributive, and it is certainly not something that we are considering at the moment.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
We are very concerned by reports of a disproportionate impact of covid-19 on ethnic minorities. It is important that we understand what is underpinning these disparities and that we have robust and accurate data to do so, in order to take effective action.
Ms Abbott [V]
The Minister will be aware that of the 17 doctors who have died from covid-19, 16 are from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. So will she be speaking to her ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health about the NHS surcharge for migrants? It cannot be right that NHS migrant workers, who are frequently BAME, pay twice for the NHS, first in taxation and then through the surcharge—and, increasingly, with their lives.
Kemi Badenoch
This is an issue that I personally have taken a keen interest in. It is one of the reasons we have commissioned Public Health England to review exactly what the impact is on ethnic minorities. Specifically on fees for migrants, migrants who are ordinarily resident in the UK already receive their NHS care for free. Many more are exempt from charges, including temporary migrants who pay the immigration health surcharge, and asylum seekers. However, it is important to note that we remain committed to fighting this virus, and that is why we changed our regulations in January to ensure that no overseas visitor or anyone living here would be charged for diagnosis of or treatment for covid.
Lilian Greenwood [V]
Dr Amir Burney of the Association of Pakistani Physicians of Northern Europe and Dr Kashif Chauhan of the Nottinghamshire Doctors Families Association have both written to me raising concerns about the safety of BAME medical staff. They tell me that their members are scared. NHS trusts have reported problems in moving at-risk BAME NHS staff away from the frontline of the crisis, despite calls from Public England to do so. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that the risk to BAME staff is properly assessed and their health and safety is properly protected?
Kemi Badenoch
The Public Health England review is going to look into this specific issue, but I must stress that we are working round the clock to protect everyone—absolutely everyone—on the frontline during this pandemic for as long as is required. NHS England has sent a letter to those running NHS care organisations recommending that employers should risk-assess staff as a precautionary measure to see if they are at greater risk and, if so, put other measures in place to protect them. That is something that will be going on around the country.
Mr Speaker
We go across to the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Caroline Nokes.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
We heard on Monday from the Health Secretary, and my hon. Friend the Minister has reiterated it, about the importance of robust data. Is my hon. Friend confident that the right data is being collected at sufficient pace? Specifically, what input is the Government Equalities Office having into the work of Public Health England, and is she confident that we will find out not only why and how BAME communities are affected, but what needs to be done to protect them?
Kemi Badenoch
The Government Equalities Office is refocusing the equality hub. The race disparity unit, the GEO and the disability unit want to spend more time on research and data so that we can help to inform Government Departments on their activity. We want to become more evidence-led. The Public Health England review is going to fit in with this overall strategy. It will be analysing how different factors, including ethnicity, gender and age, can impact on people’s health outcomes from covid-19. We are confident that this review will be able to analyse available data on health outcomes for NHS staff as well. We expect it to be published at the end of May.
Mr Speaker
May I welcome to her new position the shadow Secretary of State, Marsha de Cordova?
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The British Medical Association found that black, Asian and minority ethnic doctors have been pushed to the frontline of this covid-19 crisis and that almost two thirds of them have felt pressured to work without vital personal protective equipment. This comes amid reports that 72% of all NHS workers’ deaths were of those from a BAME background. Finally, last week, Public Health England asked all NHS trusts to risk-assess their BAME staff and, where necessary, remove them from the frontline. What steps is the Minister’s Department taking to monitor the impact of this new measure and ensure that no more workers are risking their lives to save lives?
Kemi Badenoch
This is something that we are keeping a close eye on. We are seeing a disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities, as I mentioned before, but NHS England is the right body to make the decisions on how each and every care organisation should look after its staff. We are not calling for ethnic minority medical staff to be taken off the frontline, as that would disproportionately impact ethnic minority communities, but we are doing everything that we can to ensure that they are protected. With regard to PPE, this is something, as I said earlier, that we have been working round the clock to deliver. We have had more than 1 billion items of PPE delivered to health organisations across the country, and we will continue to ensure that our frontline staff are very well protected.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
We are doing everything we can to ensure that no child, whatever their background, falls behind due to coronavirus. We have already committed more than £100 million to boost remote learning, and we are funding access to IT devices and software focused on the most disadvantaged. It is worth remembering that schools continue to receive pupil premium funding worth around £2.4 billion annually, and that should help to support disadvantaged children during this period.
Mr Harper [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but there is anecdotal evidence that school closures bear down more heavily on those from already disadvantaged backgrounds. As the Government are able to reopen schools, can we look at any measure that is necessary to enable children from more challenged backgrounds to catch up, including, if necessary, weekend and summer schools? Even if it is not possible to have schools opened fully during those periods, can we look at what we can do to help?
Kemi Badenoch
May I reassure my right hon. Friend that this is something that we are looking very closely at? We are working with partner organisations, exploring targeted support options for disadvantaged people while schools remain closed and in the summer break, and considering how best to support pupils to rapidly catch up when schools reopen. He should know that we have already taken prompt wide-ranging action to help schools and parents support all young people, publishing a list of online education resources for parents, launching a new online academy, and working with the BBC to create a package of TV and online materials to support learning at home.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
As someone who is affected by this issue of ethnic minorities and the disproportionate impact they suffer from covid, I am glad to see that it is being taken seriously across the House. I am confident that both Parliament and the Health and Social Care Committee will have the opportunity to scrutinise the Government and hold them to account on this in due course, and this is where cross-party work will be most effective.
Layla Moran [V]
I and the Liberal Democrats welcome the review that Public Health England is undertaking. I thank the Minister for her response to my question. I hope it means that she will come to the House to make a statement when we finally have the outcome of that review, but there are some things that we can do right now to better understand the disproportionate impact of covid-19 on the BAME community. One of those would be to ask a question on ethnicity on the NHS coronavirus symptom checker, which would surely give us the data that the review needs. Will she commit to speaking to the Department of Health and Social Care on adding that question to the survey?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Lady for her letter on this issue in April; the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is aware of it, and I am sure she will receive a response from him in due course. It is important to remember that Public Health England is conducting an independent and expert-led review, and we trust Public Health England to collect the information appropriately, as it sees fit.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
Women are affected by the covid-19 lockdown in different ways. Women shoulder greater caring responsibilities and are balancing work with childcare. Some women need immediate access to reproductive and maternity services. They are often financially vulnerable, and financial vulnerability will be exacerbated by the lockdown. Every Government Department is playing its part in considering how the virus and the lockdown are affecting all vulnerable groups of people.
Mr Bone [V]
I thank the excellent Minister for that response. Does she agree that opening nurseries and schools for younger children, at least, would be of great benefit, particularly to women?
Kemi Badenoch
As a mother with three young children aged six, three and seven months, I assure the House that no one is looking forward to nurseries and primary schools opening more than me. Access to childcare is crucial to supporting mothers, particularly single mothers with young children, to return to work when it is possible, and we are working closely with the sector, but schools and other providers will remain closed, except for children of critical workers and vulnerable children, until the scientific advice indicates that it is the right time to reopen.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
Understanding the impacts on different groups and the factors underpinning them is extremely complex. It is important that we have the right information on which to base our action, which is why, as I mentioned earlier, we have asked Public Health England to review covid-19 outcomes among different groups and to explore the reasons for disparities. It is also why the Government have taken numerous steps to protect those who would be most disadvantaged by this disease.
Chi Onwurah [V]
We do have some other information: according to Office for National Statistics figures, the coronavirus mortality rate in the most deprived areas, such as Elswick in Newcastle, is more than twice that in the least deprived areas—no doubt that is a consequence of health inequalities, which have risen sharply in the past 10 years—and those on lower incomes are more likely to be in frontline occupations. Now we have learned that the infection rate in the north-east is the highest in the country. What is the Minister doing to address the disproportionate impact of the virus on BAME and working-class communities?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Lady is right. We are increasingly worried about the number of deaths in deprived areas of the country. As she said, the rate of deaths in the most deprived areas was more than two times higher than in other places, but it is important to note that the underlying factors are extremely complex—these things may be related, but we do not have definitive evidence about the relationship between covid-19 and deaths in deprived areas. We are taking many steps to look after people from disadvantaged backgrounds and from working-class communities. We have protected people’s incomes and jobs, supported businesses and looked at universal credit and statutory sick pay. We are doing every single thing we can to make sure that individuals and communities are protected, on the whole, from any adverse impact of the lockdown.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins) [V]
We know that lockdown can cause particular pressures for people who are living in abusive households, which is why the Home Office has launched an awareness campaign and published specific guidance on gov.uk setting out the support services available to victims. To ensure that these vital services can continue to support victims during lockdown, we have provided an additional £2 million of funding to bolster specialist helplines and websites. That is in addition to—
Simon Baynes [V]
All domestic abuse is heartbreaking, but it is particularly so for children. What are the Government doing for children affected by domestic abuse in my constituency of Clwyd South, the rest of Wales and the rest of the UK?
Victoria Atkins [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this question. The Domestic Abuse Bill, which had its Second Reading last week, requires the domestic abuse commissioner to consider the impact of domestic abuse on children in her work. In addition, the Bill includes a new statutory duty on tier 1 local authorities in England to provide support to victims of domestic abuse and their children within safe accommodation. Last week, I announced £3.1 million in funding for specialist support for children affected by domestic abuse.
Chris Elmore [V]
I would like to press the Minister on what she is doing specifically in relation to older people who are victims of domestic abuse. Age UK has recently reported that, in 2019, more than 280,000 people aged between 60 and 74 experienced domestic abuse in England and Wales. Given Government advice both in Wales and across the UK on lockdown, it would be helpful to know what specific support she is providing for older people who are victims?
Victoria Atkins [V]
I thank the hon. Member for his question. As I say, the gov.uk website sets out the services that are available to victims of domestic abuse in these very troubling times, and of course helplines may be of particular use to older people who are not perhaps as familiar with online services as younger generations. In addition, we have announced £76 million in funding to help vulnerable people, with the Chancellor’s £750 million charities fund, and that includes victims of domestic abuse. Of course, the Bill itself will help to—
Marco Longhi [V]
The Churches Housing Association of Dudley and District is a charity that provides support and housing to vulnerable people, including victims of domestic abuse. Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent announcement of £76 million to support such charities and the new priority need status allocated to victims who are seeking local housing will provide very real support to an extremely vulnerable group of people at this difficult time?
Victoria Atkins [V]
I agree with my hon. Friend that small and frontline charities play a vital role in supporting vulnerable people. That is why, on Saturday, the Communities Secretary announced a £76 million fund or package of support to ensure that the most vulnerable in society get the support they need during the pandemic.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Disabled women are three to four times more likely to face domestic abuse than non-disabled women, but accessible specialist services are most at risk during this coronavirus crisis; only one in 10 refuge spaces is accessible. As part of the work of the disability unit, will the Minister ensure that specialist funding for disabled domestic abuse victims is ring-fenced?
Victoria Atkins[V]
I thank the hon. Lady, and I welcome her to her position. We are very aware that disabled people face additional pressures when they are victims of domestic abuse, so certainly those considerations form part of the Government’s plans to help the most vulnerable people in society during these very troubling times.
Mr Speaker
Order. This Friday marks the 75th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. I know all hon. Members will be keen to mark this occasion, even in these exceptional circumstances. I will be marking the occasion with a wreath-laying ceremony in the House on Friday.
We now come to questions to the Prime Minister. I would like to welcome the Prime Minister back to his rightful place in the Chamber. The whole House and the whole country are delighted at his recovery, and I welcome him back to this elected House.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Mr Speaker, thank you for your kind words. It is good to be back, even though I have been away for longer than I had intended. I would like to pay tribute today to the 107 NHS and 29 care workers and all those who have, sadly, died from coronavirus. I know that the sympathies of the House are with their family and friends. If I may, Mr Speaker, I would like to place on the record in this House my own thanks to all the staff at St Thomas’ Hospital for the brilliant care that I received.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I will have further such meetings later today.
Simon Jupp [V]
First, I would like to welcome the Prime Minister back to where he belongs, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating him and his fiancée on the birth of their son, Wilfred.
On coronavirus, tourism is absolutely crucial to the economy of the south-west, including my constituency of East Devon. While I am currently asking visitors to come back later, once the lockdown has ended, I want to make sure that our vital tourism industry survives so that we can be open for business at the earliest opportunity. Can the Prime Minister assure me, my constituents and East Devon’s tourism industry that further and flexible financial support is coming to protect this crucial industry?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed I can. I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing to campaign for tourism in East Devon, and I can tell him that we are adding another £1.3 million to help the tourism industry in that area. Clearly, the priority of the Government and, I believe, of the whole House is now to suppress this disease further and, as we do that, to get our economy going again and to encourage tourism across our whole country and, of course, East Devon in particular.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I welcome the Prime Minister back to his place and say that it is good to see him back in Parliament? I am sure I speak for all of us when I say that, and although I have done this privately, I congratulate him and Carrie publicly on the birth of their son.
When the Prime Minister returned to work a week ago Monday, he said that many people were looking at the “apparent success” of the Government’s approach, but yesterday we learned that, tragically, at least 29,427 people in the UK have now lost their lives to this dreadful virus. That is now the highest number in Europe and the second highest in the world. That is not success, or apparent success, so can the Prime Minister tell us: how on earth did it come to this?
The Prime Minister
First, of course every death is a tragedy and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to draw attention to the appalling statistics, not just in this country but around the world. In answer to his question, I would echo what we have heard from Professor David Spiegelhalter and others: at this stage I do not think that the international comparisons and the data are yet there to draw the conclusions that we want.
What I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that, at every stage, as we took the decisions that we did, we were governed by one overriding principle and aim, and that was to save lives and to protect our NHS. Of course there will be a time to look at what decisions we took and whether we could have taken different decisions, but I have absolutely no doubt that what the people of this country want us to do now is, as I have just said, to keep suppressing the disease and to begin the work of getting our country’s economy back on its feet. I look forward to working with him and colleagues around the House to do just that.
Keir Starmer
The argument that international comparisons cannot be made, when the Government have for weeks been using slides such as the one I am holding to make international comparisons, really does not hold water. I am afraid that many people are concluding that the answer to my question is that the UK was slow into lockdown, slow on testing, slow on tracing and slow on the supply of protective equipment.
I want to go to yesterday’s figures, which show that while, happily, it looks as though deaths in hospitals are falling, deaths in care homes continue to go up. At the press conference last night, the deputy chief scientific adviser said that
“what that shows us is that there is a real issue that we need to get to grips with about what is happening in care homes.”
I could not agree more, but 12 weeks after the Health Secretary declared that we were in a health crisis, I have to ask the Prime Minister: why have the Government not got to grips with this already?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right to look at the crisis in care homes, and he is absolutely right to say that there is an epidemic going on in care homes, which is something I bitterly regret. We have been working very hard for weeks to get it done, and a huge amount of effort has been made by literally tens of thousands of people to get the right PPE to care homes and to encourage workers in care homes to understand what is needed. I can tell him that he is not right in what he just said about the state of the epidemic in care homes. If he looks at the figures in the last few days, there has been a palpable improvement. We must hope that that continues and we will ensure that it does continue.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that. I was using the slide the Government put up at their press conference last night, which sadly shows—I accept there is a lag to 24 April because of the reporting position—that deaths in care homes have been rising every time they have been reported by the Office for National Statistics. I have heard before, from the First Secretary, that the numbers were falling—he said that a week ago Sunday. That is not borne out by these slides. We will wait to see what the next slides bring.
On 30 April, the Government claimed success in meeting their 100,000 tests a day target. Since then, as the Prime Minister knows, the number has fallen back. On Monday, there were just 84,000 tests, and that meant 24,000 available tests were not used. What does the Prime Minister think was so special about 30 April that meant that testing that day was so high?
The Prime Minister
Actually, I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was right last week when he paid tribute to the amazing work of the NHS, the logistics team and everybody involved in getting up from 2,000 tests a day in March to 120,000 by the end of April. Yes, he is right that capacity currently exceeds demand. We are working on that. We are running at about 100,000 a day, but the ambition, clearly, is to get up to 200,000 a day by the end of this month, and then to go even higher. As he knows, and as the whole House will know, a fantastic testing regime is going to be absolutely critical to our long-term economic recovery.
Keir Starmer
I did pay tribute last week. I am glad the Prime Minister has now said that the target now is 200,000 tests a day by the end of this month. But, of course, just having a target is not a strategy. What is needed is testing, tracing and isolation—that is the strategy. Contact tracing was happening in the UK, but it was abandoned in mid-March. We were told at the time that this was because it was “not an appropriate mechanism”, but yesterday the deputy chief medical officer said that it was to do with testing capacity. Can the Prime Minister clarify the position for us? Why was contact tracing abandoned in mid-March and not restarted sooner?
The Prime Minister
As I think is readily apparent to everybody who has studied the situation, and I think the scientists would confirm, the difficulty in mid-March was that the tracing capacity that we had—it had been useful, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly says, in the containment phase of the epidemic—was no longer useful or relevant, since the transmission from individuals within the UK exceeded our capacity.
The value of the test, tracking and tracing operation that we are setting up now is that, as we come out of the epidemic, and as we get the new cases down, we will have a team that is genuinely able to track and trace hundreds of thousands of people across the country, and thereby drive down the epidemic. To put it in a nutshell, it is easier to do now—now that we have built up the team on the way out—than it was as the epidemic took off. I think most people with common sense can see the particular difficulties that we had at the time.
Keir Starmer
I think the Prime Minister has confirmed it was a capacity problem. I wish the Government well on the tracking and tracing now, and on the app that is being trialled in the Isle of Wight. We all want that to succeed, and we will all support that in, hopefully, succeeding.
Let me turn to protective equipment, where, clearly, there are ongoing problems. Just this week, the British Medical Association survey said that 48% of doctors had to buy their protective equipment for themselves or rely on donations. That is clearly unacceptable. It is obvious that this problem will get even more acute if and when the Government ask people to return to work. We are clearly going to need a very robust national plan for protective equipment. Can the Prime Minister reassure the public that they will not be asked to return to work until that plan is in place?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I certainly can. I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s frustration about PPE, and the frustration that I think people have felt across the House and across the country. It has been enraging to see the difficulties that we have had in supplying PPE to those who need it, but I do pay tribute again to the work of hundreds of thousands of people involved in the logistics of supplying literally billions of items across the country in a timely way. There have been no national stock-outs of any PPE item, and we are now engaged in a massive plan to ramp up our domestic supply. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be familiar with what Lord Deighton is now working on, so that—to get to his final question—we are able in the long term, and it may be the long term, to satisfy the domestic needs of this country. We will of course be setting out the details of that plan on Sunday.
Keir Starmer
I was going to come to the plan; I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that indication. As he knows, there are millions of people on furlough, and millions with children at home, struggling with caring responsibilities. If they are to return to work and their children are to return to school, they need reassurance—I think that we can all feel that—that it will be safe to do so, and that means that they need to know what the Government’s plan is for the next stage. Will the Prime Minister give them that reassurance by setting out his plan as he says he will, and will he come to this House on Monday to present that plan and answer questions from across the House?
The Prime Minister
I will, of course, undertake that there will be a statement to the House—as you, Mr Speaker, and the House would properly expect—about what we propose. I just want to explain to the House, as a courtesy, why it is happening on Sunday; I am sure that you would be interested to know that, Mr Speaker. The reason is very simple. We have to be sure that the data is going to support our ability to do this, but that data is coming in continuously over the next few days. We will want, if we possibly can, to get going with some of these measures on Monday, and I think it will be a good thing if people have an idea of what is coming the following day. That is why I think Sunday—the weekend—is the best time to do it, but of course the House will be fully informed and will have the full opportunity to debate and interrogate me or the Government on that matter.
Mr Speaker
And hopefully in the future such statements will be made to the House first.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that a crucial part of our success in getting transport to run safely will now be running a bigger and more expansive tube service so that people can observe social distancing. We will certainly be working with the Mayor to try to achieve that, although there must be—we will come to this on Sunday and next week—mitigations to help people who, for reasons of social distancing, cannot use mass transit. There will be a huge amount of planning going into helping people to get to work other than by mass transit. I hope that my right hon. Friend, as a former Transport Minister, will agree that this should be a new golden age for cycling.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
I welcome the Prime Minister back to Parliament, and congratulate him and Carrie on the birth of their son Wilfred; I wish Wilfred every health and happiness.
The UK’s confirmed death toll now stands at close to 30,000. It is officially the highest in Europe and the second highest in the entire world. Indeed, there are some estimates putting the figure even higher. In my own community of Skye, we have faced our own heartbreaking and devastating outbreak of covid-19 over the past few days. I do agree with the Prime Minister when he says that the worst thing that we could do now would be to ease up the lockdown too soon and allow a second peak of this deadly virus. To protect our citizens, the lockdown must remain in place for as long as it is needed. Given that many people might want to travel to, for example, the tourist areas during the better weather, will the Prime Minister join me in reminding everyone that non-essential travel is not permitted? Does he agree with me and the First Minister of Scotland that our approach should be led only by the best medical and scientific advice, not the politics of posturing?
The Prime Minister
Yes indeed. Actually, I think that the last few weeks have shown the ability of the Governments of all four nations to come together and to deliver very clear messages for our people, and I think the collaboration has been extremely helpful. I can say to the leader of the SNP that we will certainly be working with the Government in Scotland, as we will be working with the Opposition, with unions and with business, to make sure that we get the unlockdown plan completely right. What he says is absolute common sense: it would be an economic disaster for this country if we were to pursue a relaxation of these measures now in such a way as to trigger a second spike. On that point I am in complete agreement with him.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s answer and I commit myself and my party, and my Government colleagues in Edinburgh, to working with him on that shared agenda. However, some of his own Ministers are not following his advice. Instead of working with the Scottish Government, the Secretary of State for Scotland has been making political arguments about the constitution, rather than scientific ones about saving lives. And he is not the only one. This is not the time for opportunistic politicking; this is the time when we all must work together, to protect our NHS and to save lives.
We anticipate that the Prime Minister will be making a televised address on Sunday concerning the easing of the lockdown. This cannot be undertaken without the full input and co-operation of all our devolved Governments. We must end this period of mixed messaging from the UK Government. Will the Prime Minister commit today that the substance of his address will be fully agreed with the devolved nations, so that all our Governments continue with this vital work of saving lives?
The Prime Minister
Yes. By the way, I forgot to thank the right hon. Gentleman and other colleagues for their kind words about Wilfred. I want to thank him for that; I forgot to say that, and I will be marked down if I don’t. So thank you. Listen, I share the right hon. Gentleman’s aims. We will do our level best to make sure that the outlines of this attract the widest possible consensus; I think that they can and ought to. I am delighted by his call for a prohibition on “political arguments about the constitution” and I think that would be warmly welcomed across this country.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question and for all his campaigning for the oil and gas industry. The whole House will have heard the fervour and learning with which he speaks on that issue, and I can assure him that our right hon. colleague the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is actively engaged right now in pursuing this with the sector trade association. I am sure he will want to take up progress with him.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government have absolutely no intention of returning to the A-word, which I will not quote. That is not going to be our approach. We do not think that will be necessary. What I can tell him is that we have already put another £3.2 billion, as he knows, into supporting local authorities and supporting some of the most vulnerable throughout this difficult time. We will continue to make sure that funding gets through to those who need it, but the crucial thing, as colleagues across the House will understand, is that the more effectively we can suppress this virus and the faster we can restart our economy, the better our chances, as everybody knows, of getting the funding that we all need to the poorest and neediest in our society. That is the course that this Government is going to follow.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I thank my hon. Friend, and I extend my deepest sympathies to the friends and family of his constituent, Ashley. We are asking councils to do exactly that—to help people to attend without breaching the rules on social distancing. I am sure that he would appreciate that we think that is the right balance to strike.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) [V]
Mr Speaker
Before the Prime Minister answers, will Members please ensure that they do not have political slogans behind them when they are speaking?
The Prime Minister
The furlough scheme has been one of the outstanding provisions that the Government have been able to put in. It has given huge numbers of people—more than 6 million people—in this country the security that they need. Obviously, we want to make sure that people continue to feel that security, but at the same time, we also want to enable people safely and securely to go back to work and earn their pay packets, as they want to do.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend very much for all the work he does to champion the cause of education, particularly further education, on the Select Committee on Education. As he knows, the agenda of this Government remains unchanged: to unite and level up across our country with infrastructure, technology and education above all. That includes our world-leading universities, which are now formulating vaccines against this disease, further education and the skills that our economy is going to need so badly for a sustained economic recovery.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady knows, what we have done is remove the seven-day waiting time for ESA. I am glad that she pays tribute to the big increase in universal credit, with another £1,040 benefiting 4 million families across the country—a total investment of £7 billion. I think that what everybody wants to see is not just people taking universal credit but, as I have now said several times, a careful and sensible programme, attracting the widest possible support, that enables us to continue to suppress the disease right down while also allowing our economy to start up again.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on the way he represents his constituents in Barrow. He is exactly right. That is why, among other things, we are ensuring that there are extra computers and laptops for disadvantaged communities, while making sure that we supply them with more 4G routers, which are invaluable at this particularly difficult time. There will be more to come, because this Government will pursue our agenda of uniting and levelling up across the whole UK.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Gentleman is asking for the cap on benefits to be lifted. As I have just told the House, already a total of £7 billion extra has gone into universal credit alone.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
As a great believer in buses, and as a part-time manufacturer of them, I agree with my hon. Friend very strongly about the good work being done by Bernie the bus and all who support it and travel therein.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady very much. She is absolutely right, as anybody knows, to draw attention to the difficulties, the straitened circumstances, the pressures that local councils have been under. That is why we put the extra £3.2 billion in immediately to help them cope, and she should know, by the way, that Nottingham—her own city—has already had an extra £19 million to help deal with the pressures of coronavirus. Certainly, that is by no means the last of the support that we will be giving to our fantastic frontline council workers, who, as she rightly says, have borne so much of the brunt of this crisis.
Lifting the Lockdown: Workplace Safety
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) [V]
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement on guidelines for workplace safety after the lifting of lockdown.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
We have made clear that there are five tests that the Government will need to be satisfied of before we will consider it safe to adjust the current measures. As hon. Members will be aware, the Government are in the process of consulting with businesses, business representative organisations and trade unions on the issue of safer working in a covid-19 context. We want workers in our country to feel confident that they are returning to a safe workplace, so we are working with Public Health England, the Health and Safety Executive and 525 stakeholders in total in detail, the vast majority of which are represented across all parts of the United Kingdom. That includes nine unions and over 400 businesses.
We are grateful for all the feedback and the constructive way in which it has been provided. Our guidelines will be published in due course.
Andy McDonald
Last Sunday, the Government sent trade unions and businesses seven consultation documents outlining proposals for a return to workplaces. We all share a common objective of a safe return to work at the appropriate time that protects public health. However, when the Government’s plans fall short, it is our duty to say so. Trade unions were given just 12 hours to respond. The documents were not shared with the Opposition and the proposals themselves are wholly inadequate.
No worker should have their life or the lives of their loved ones risked simply by going to work. This is a legal right, which held true before this crisis and, crucially, must not be cast aside now. The documents present measures to maintain safe workplaces, such as hand washing and social distancing, as being at the discretion of employers, when in fact they are requirements of the law. The Government must make this clear and inform workers and businesses of their respective rights and duties. I share the surprise of trade unions that the documents provide no recommendations on personal protective equipment, without which it is impossible to make judgments on safe working practices.
Critically, the proposals exclude workers. A safe return to work is a significant challenge that can be met only if Government and business work with staff. My ask of the Minister is that the Government now bring forward guidelines requiring specific covid-19 risk assessments for most businesses, and that assessments are made public and registered with the Health and Safety Executive. Given the lack of capacity for inspections, these assessments must be agreed with staff. In workplaces with trade unions, this can be done by health and safety reps. In those without them, the Government should enable trade unions to assist workforces in their sectors to elect or appoint a rep to be consulted and involved in the settling, implementation and enforcement of assessments.
Finally, workers need to have confidence and trust that the Government have got their back, so will the Minister confirm that employees will not be prejudiced in any way for drawing attention to safety failings in the workplace? This time, we are truly all in this together. I trust that my comments are received in the constructive spirit in which they are offered.
Paul Scully
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the constructive way in which we began our relationship as our opposite numbers in a call we had last week. We have plenty of opportunity to work together to ensure the confidence that employers, employees and customers need as we begin to open up the economy. The guidelines that he was talking about are an early draft. There will continue to be plenty of opportunity for him to feed in, as there has been for those 400 businesses and nine trade unions, because this is not a finished process. We need to get into the technical detail to ensure that everybody has confidence.
In the same way that employees need that confidence, they should be able to discuss with their employers the steps they might take to make their workplaces safer, especially when we start to lift restrictions. Where workers still feel unsafe, they can contact the Health and Safety Executive or their local authority. Where employers are identified, action can be taken to ensure compliance with the relevant public health legislation and guidance.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) [V]
I know that my hon. Friend’s Department is undertaking a review of corporate governance and audit. Does he agree that, now more than ever, it is vital that the review puts the safety and financial security of employees at the heart of all businesses’ obligations to their stakeholders?
Paul Scully
I am grateful for that question. As my right hon. Friend knows, we have had three independent reviews of various aspects of audit by John Kingman, the Competition and Markets Authority and Sir Donald Brydon. We are committed to acting on their recommendations, including by legislating to create a tougher, stronger regulator, as soon as parliamentary time allows. We are working on that and will publish our proposals in due course.
Mr Speaker
I now call Drew Hendry, who is asked to speak for no more than one minute.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]
While the social and economic impact of this crisis cannot be overestimated, it is vital that all workplaces are reopened only when it is safe to do so. After all, they will only work if they have the confidence of workers. On 25 March, the Scottish Government and the STUC issued a joint statement making clear their shared fair work expectations. That naturally followed the Scottish Government’s fair work approach, which has been developed in partnership with the unions over years. They are now looking forward to putting that into law, once Holyrood has the power to do so. Reports that the TUC cannot support the draft UK policies are therefore of great concern. In a spirit of collegiality, what consideration has the Minister given to following the Scottish Government’s approach of ensuring that the guidance is consistent with fair work, including that workplace rules be developed for specific environments, and not only by employers but by trade unions as well?
Paul Scully
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I agree with him that our message and our processes need to be as consistent as possible, not least for people across the UK, but also for the companies operating in each nation of the UK. That is why colleagues from my Department have regular conversations with the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Parliament. We must continue to work to get into the detail to give employees that confidence. We will continue to work through that with businesses, unions and others who are feeding in day to day, so that we can provide a consistent, robust line and give confidence, with examples of best practice from businesses that have remained open and from which we can learn.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) [V]
Enabling people to go back to work safely is key to getting through this crisis. Safe working will inevitably be different for different businesses in different settings. Will the Minister do all he can to ensure that Government guidance focuses on general principles of social distancing and hygiene, and avoids being overly prescriptive, so that as many businesses as possible can reopen safely?
Paul Scully
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. She is absolutely right, and that is why we have consulted as widely as possible. We will continue to do so, because we need to ensure that all these guidelines give confidence to people in every type of workplace, in every part of the UK. It is also important to reiterate that many companies are still operating. We need to ensure that our economy stays open and working, so that we can bounce back as quickly possible, and those companies are already offering best practice for that.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
I have been speaking to lots of businesses over the past few days and they are all obviously very keen to get back to work as soon as possible, but their big concern is not only the safety of their staff but what liability the business would have to bear if one of those members of staff got sick despite their best efforts to ensure their safety. I would really like to hear what the Minister has to say to give businesses reassurance on that point.
Paul Scully
In the first instance, what I would say to the hon. Lady is that as well as employers working on that guidance and ensuring that they are offering a safe place, employees and workers need to know that they have the right and the opportunity to approach the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities to make sure that existing legislation and guidance are being followed.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
If we want businesses to come back, they need to survive. Small businesses that pay themselves through dividends are not pariahs; they operate entirely legally. Will my hon. Friend speak to the Treasury to make sure that these businesses survive, and can we look again at the dividend issue, because many small businesses will not survive to allow their workers to come back next week if we do not?
Paul Scully
I am grateful for that comment. Clearly, the Government’s first priority in all of this is saving lives, but livelihoods and making sure that businesses and jobs are retained and that we can bounce back is very important. I will certainly take that away. I know that the Treasury has always been keen to look at each step of the situation to ensure that we can come up with economic support as well as the health support that we have been discussing in this urgent question.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]
Welcome to North Antrim, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister tell us what guidelines he and the Government will put in place to assist necessary workers and passengers travelling on airlines from Northern Ireland to London? What assistance will he put in place for air operators that are taking and making necessary flights to ensure that there are the necessary guidelines and protections in place for those workers?
Paul Scully
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Part of giving people the confidence to return to work is giving them the confidence to be able to travel to and from various parts of the UK to work, which is why this process will also look at transport, at opening schools and at those kind of things when the health guidance is appropriate.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]
We owe a huge debt of gratitude to all the people who have been working throughout the pandemic to allow us to stay at home. Many people in Wolverhampton are now nervous of returning to the workplace, especially those who share their home with a medically vulnerable person. Will special advice be given to employers on extra measures to be put in place so that these people can be confident that they continue to protect and shield vulnerable people?
Paul Scully
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the important issue of those people who are most vulnerable in this situation. The guidance already sets out the steps that individuals living with shielded and vulnerable people should take to keep them safe. Where the Health and Safety Executive identifies employers who are not taking appropriate action to ensure that workers in the shielded category can follow the NHS advice to self-isolate for the period specified, it will consider taking a range of actions to improve the control of risks in the workplace.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]
Does the Minister agree that to prevent a second wave of covid-19, employees will have to be as safe as possible when they return to the workplace, that employers have a statutory obligation to achieve this and that they owe their employees a duty of care? How can asking employers merely to consider non-binding guidance possibly help them to achieve these legal obligations? Is he really saying that workplaces should continue to operate where safe working practices cannot be achieved? That is what his guidance seems to be saying.
Paul Scully
By consulting as many businesses, unions and representative organisations as we can, we have been able to work through the guidelines in our own times. Whereas at the beginning we were having to react to the closure of the economy, this timeline is for us so that we can be well prepared and give as few surprises to businesses as possible so they can plan. That is why we want to have a flexible situation so that they can prepare and operate a safe environment for their employees, but, as I mentioned before, employees can approach the Health and Safety Executive or their local authorities if they feel that they are not operating in a safe workplace.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) [V]
Does the Minister agree that a public information campaign is required before and during the easing of lockdown, to inform employees and employers of their respective rights and duties, and to give the public confidence in returning to work?
Paul Scully
Communication is so important in this. We have seen how effective the message about staying home and saving lives has been so far. What we must now do is work with businesses to ensure that they have fully communicated the message on safe guidelines for their workplaces. Similarly, we need to make it clear to employees, as we are now doing, that those who cannot work from home, unless they are in a business that has specifically been asked to close, can travel to work, but they need to be considerate about that and ensure that they work within the social distancing rules. Yes, communication is everything, and I think we all have a responsibility to get those messages across.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) [V]
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that people are protected when they return to work? As we now move to this second phase, will the Government commit to providing clear and concise guidance to employers on how they can best protect their staff?
Paul Scully
The Government remain committed to supporting business during this unprecedented change. We are preparing for the next phase of tackling covid-19 in the ways I have outlined, and how we can lift the social distancing measures in a phased way, at the right time and guided by the science. We are involving Public Health England and the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that we have the latest guidance on which to base our planning.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
During the first two weeks of lockdown, I was contacted by many constituents who were fearful of speaking out against irresponsible employers in case doing so would get them the sack. Does the Minister understand why Frances O’Grady of the TUC has raised concerns that unless the Government shift their position and put this into law, bad bosses will continue to expose their workers to infection without fear of consequences? Will he work with the TUC to put these concerns into law so that workers have their rights respected and their safety assured?
Paul Scully
I work with and speak to the trade unions on a regular basis—indeed, I will be speaking to TUC representatives later this afternoon—which is why we wanted to keep them involved in forming the guidelines, to represent their employees, because by working together we will give employees that confidence and get the message across to employers that social distancing within the workplace, where possible, is absolutely crucial if we are to open up the economy and return to whatever the new normal is.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) [V]
The vast majority of businesses in my constituency and across the country want to do the right thing, and the right thing is to get back to business. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should encourage a return to work, of course safely? Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of our country, and they deserve even more support now.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stand up for small businesses. This is why we have said that unless businesses are among those that were required to close, they can continue to operate so that they are in the best place to survive, bounce back and contribute to the UK’s recovery from this situation. We need to ensure that we do that safely and that employers are acting responsibly, and that will be dealt with by involving as many people as we can in getting specific guidelines for each different workplace in each part of the UK and getting those messages across.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) [V]
Supplies of PPE are still extremely tightly constrained. What are the Government doing to ensure that when employers start to buy face masks and other equipment to keep their employees safe, the price and supply of PPE will not be extremely distorted?
Paul Scully
We are working with supply chains in the UK and across the world to ensure that, with the huge demand for PPE in a number of different countries that are all suffering and working through the same situation together, we can be at the forefront of this. With the work being done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and my colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, along with Lord Deighton, we will be able to ensure that the supply chains remain readily available, and in that way we can also work on fair pricing.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) [V]
As my hon. Friend works with the Prime Minister on the comprehensive plan for the next phase of the response to coronavirus, can he assure me that we will continue to work with both Public Health England and the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that workplaces are safe, with a particular focus on complex workplaces such as construction sites? Our incredibly hard-working construction workers are having to go into work, and I want to ensure that they are safe on site.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is right to take the specific example of construction sites. Clearly, there are different types of site. Battersea power station, which I visited just before the restrictions were introduced, is a 40-acre site, so social distancing is easier there than on a far smaller, constrained site. That is why we are bringing together industry expertise, union expertise and business representatives to ensure we have guidance that fits as many different workplaces as possible, backed up by Public Health England and the Health and Safety Executive.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
Analysis from the TUC shows that workplace inspections have fallen by 70% and prosecutions by 82% over the past 10 years. We all want to get Britain back to work, so what guarantees can the Minister give that local government and the Health and Safety Executive will have the resources they need to ensure safe working practices?
Paul Scully
We will continue to talk to the Health and Safety Executive about the resources it needs. Local authorities have been working incredibly hard on local health issues and, in my experience—I have spoken to many of them—on providing financial support. That is why the Chancellor has been giving financial support, with a second round of £1.6 billion to support their functions. We will continue to review any support that we need to give.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) [V]
Does my hon. Friend agree that holiday parks, campsites and self-catering holiday accommodation are well suited to adhering to workplace safety arrangements and should be considered for phased and gradual reopening, to boost coastal and rural economies and provide people with the opportunity of a holiday in the UK?
Paul Scully
I am glad that my hon. Friend is standing up for coastal areas, which have been particularly badly affected. I get a lot of feedback from an economic point of view from the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors. We work closely with them and will continue to do so. I will ensure that we pay due attention to that advice, so that all coastal areas are as well looked after as possible.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
We know that it is vital to get the economy moving again, but this will be possible only when people have the confidence to return to work in the knowledge that their workplace is safe. Why did the Government propose non-binding guidance with zero enforcement mechanism? Does the Minister think that is sufficient to make people feel safe and confident enough to return to work?
Paul Scully
We are working on the guidance with a number of business representative organisations and with the trade unions, and when we complete that work, we will publish it at the appropriate moment. The Health and Safety Executive will be right at the core of that work, in checking and in enforcing, and, as I have said, workers will be able to approach both the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities if they do not feel that the organisation within which they are working is adhering to that guidance.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) [V]
Many of our essential workers are, of course, already in the workplace, for which we are hugely grateful. The Minister confirmed that we will learn from them, but can he also assure the House that we will manage any disruption to them as a result of other sectors going back to work, for instance in PPE and transport requirements?
Paul Scully
I can assure my hon. Friend that we will indeed look at all of this in the round to ensure that we can work out the different scenarios as people return to work. What we have at the moment is a very different situation from what we will have when restrictions start to be lifted, and that will be a very different situation from what it might be when the economy is fully open. We must understand that, and we will work with the people who are already working and with the business representative organisations that I mentioned earlier.
Mr Speaker
We will try to reconnect with Mike Wood down in Dudley. Mike Wood, I hope you are connected.
Mike Wood [V]
Second time lucky, Mr Speaker, although some would prefer me on mute, I am sure.
As the Minister will know, many of our workers have been working throughout this outbreak. As well as thanking them for all their efforts, will the Minister assure us that the Government are making sure that employers are aware of their responsibilities and are keeping their workers safe?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for giving me the opportunity to thank those people who have kept our economy going through this difficult time. We rightly say a massive thank you to our key workers—our emergency workers, and especially those in the NHS, but we must also thank those who have been feeding the country and supplying the shops, the delivery drivers, the construction workers, the warehouse operatives and the retailers who have been out there doing that crucial work. We must make sure, as I said earlier, that we can give employees coming back to the workplace the confidence that they are working in a safe environment. We will certainly be able to do that if we can continue to work with as many businesses, unions and organisations as possible. We need to get this right and get our message right that the economy can be opened and that we can get back to work.
Covid-19: International Response
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I call the Secretary of State for International Development, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, who should speak for no more than 10 minutes.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the UK’s support for the global effort to tackle the coronavirus pandemic.
The world is now having to address the biggest threat that it has faced in decades: an invisible killer on a global scale. Here in the UK, communities across the country are united in their determination to beat it, making their own personal sacrifices by staying at home, protecting our NHS and saving lives.
There is a daunting outlook for countries in the developing world, simultaneously facing a health crisis, a humanitarian crisis and the risk of a protracted economic crisis leading to much greater hardship for years to come. The threat of famines, exacerbated by the worst locust plague for 70 years, fragile healthcare systems that enable the spread of the disease and economic disruptions risk a much longer and harder road back to recovery than for wealthy countries.
However, through the altruism of the British people and the expertise of our scientists and engineers, the UK is proudly playing a leading role in the global response. On Monday, together with other world leaders, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister co-hosted a virtual global coronavirus response pledging conference. He called on countries around the world to step up their efforts and work together on this, the
“most urgent shared endeavour of our lifetimes”.
World leaders responded, and some £6.5 billion was pledged for the covid-19 response, including the UK’s own £388 million commitment for vaccines, tests and treatments. The UK is proud to stand with our international partners—this is a truly global effort, and the only way to fight this pandemic is together.
The UK is a development superpower, and we are also a scientific and medical world leader. This enables our response to this global pandemic to be greater than the sum of its parts. From Gloucestershire’s Dr Edward Jenner, who laid the foundations for immunology, to our researchers who developed vaccines for measles and Ebola, the UK has led the scientific response to many global health challenges in the past. I am so proud to be able to say that UK-based scientists, such as those at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, are playing key roles in the global response to this deadly new virus. Scientists in Bedfordshire who developed rapid diagnostic devices to manage the recent Ebola outbreak, funded with taxpayers’ money through UK aid, are using that expertise to develop new rapid diagnostic tests.
Researchers at Oxford University, funded through CEPI— the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations —are now progressing to clinical trials, with funding from the UK Government’s vaccines taskforce, which is also funding a vaccine trial starting soon at Imperial College. In partnership with a British success story, AstraZeneca—one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies—our Oxford researchers are working towards their vaccine being manufactured at scale. We know that any vaccine might prove to be the solution, so through our Department for International Development aid budget, the UK is the largest single contributor of any country to CEPI’s international efforts to find a coronavirus vaccine. Through this fund, we are working to improve our understanding of the virus and to support scientists around the globe. CEPI is already backing nine potential vaccines.
The Foreign Secretary outlined at the launch of the World Health Organisation’s access to covid-19 tools accelerator that the UK is proud to work with our international partners to ensure that new vaccines are accessible to everyone, as quickly as possible. No one will be safe until we are all safe. So we will need vaccines against this deadly disease, at home and abroad. Once a vaccine is found, delivering it globally will be the next big challenge. To help with that, we have invested the equivalent of £330 million a year for the next five years in GAVI, the global vaccine alliance that delivers vaccines in 68 of the poorest countries around the world. On 4 June, the UK will be hosting the global vaccine summit to co-ordinate international investment efforts for GAVI. Together with the announcement made by the Prime Minister on Monday, that is a combined additional investment in global health security that comes to more than £2 billion, helping combat the spread of disease. In investing globally, we are helping to protect our citizens—our families—from future waves of infection, and protecting our NHS.
The global pandemic is one part of the challenge facing the world. DFID’s immediate coronavirus response to date amounts to £744 million. But this is on top of our work to pivot much of our existing work to provide health, humanitarian and economic support where it is needed most, as part of our response to these crises, with a health response that builds on the UK’s long-standing record of supporting countries to prepare for and respond to large disease outbreaks, including as the third largest donor to the World Health Organisation. We are investing on the frontier of research into new rapid diagnostics and therapeutics that can detect and treat coronavirus. Working in partnership with Unilever, we have launched an innovative hand-washing campaign that will reach 1 billion people around the world—a major contribution to global sanitation and hygiene. With the support of British and international non-governmental organisations, and advice from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, we will reach one in seven people around the world with information on the most effective ways to stop the virus spreading and save lives.
We are also working to reduce the global economic impact of the virus by preventing its spread, protecting both the UK public and the stability of our economy. Last month, the UK, together with other G20 countries, announced a commitment to suspend debt service payments to the poorest countries until the end of 2020. This will create up to $12 billion of additional fiscal space. DFID has also made up to £150 million available to the International Monetary Fund for debt relief. These measures will enable developing countries to direct greater domestic resources to their own healthcare efforts, helping to prevent the virus from spreading around the world. We are supporting developing country Governments to make proportionate, evidence-based trade-offs between containing the virus and maintaining open trade, so that essential goods and services, including critical medical and food supplies, can continue to move around the world. That supports developing countries, but it also means that British consumers will get the vital goods they need.
Covid-19 is a global pandemic. It does not respect national borders. Individual efforts will succeed only as part of a global response. The UK will continue to play a leading role in galvanising the most effective co-ordinated international action. In 2017, the scientific community in the UK proudly played a key role in the international response to the Ebola outbreak in west Africa. I am proud to update the House that we are doing so again.
We are using British expertise and funding to demonstrate leadership internationally. Recognising that needs will be great, we are doing whatever it takes to ensure that vaccines, treatments and technologies are available, to save lives and to support economies in the most vulnerable countries, and to help end the pandemic. That will help reduce the risk of the world being attacked by a second wave of infection. As the Prime Minister said on Monday:
“It’s humanity against the virus—we are in this together, and together we will prevail.”
I commend this statement to the House.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I would also like to offer my thanks to all those workers, both in the UK and across the world, who are on the frontline during this pandemic. In particular, I thank the women, who make up more than 70% of the global health workforce and provide unpaid and underpaid care in communities around the world.
Wherever we look, the virus has hit the poorest and most vulnerable hardest and has exacerbated existing inequalities. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that ensuring that we have a strong, independent DFID is vital to overcoming the immediate emergency of the coronavirus while continuing to tackle global poverty, inequality and the climate crisis.
I support the Secretary of State’s commitment to the pledging event on Monday, which was hosted by the European Union and other partners. I welcome the UK’s commitment of £388 million. Can she tell the House how much of that is new, additional money? Without global collaboration, there is a risk of a scramble between countries, huge price hikes and restrictions on supply, which will all come at the expense of people’s lives. What steps is she taking to secure buy-in from those who did not attend the event and those who did not contribute, such as the United States and China?
Following the comments by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about an upside of being first to discover a vaccine, has the International Development Secretary explained to him that creating division and competition between nations will cost lives? Will she also detail the concrete conditions that the Government are attaching to public money going to researching and manufacturing tests, vaccines and medical tools for covid-19, so that those who need access to that vital equipment and medicine are able to access it as quickly as possible wherever they are in the world?
I would also like to take this opportunity to raise the issue of shipments and distribution. Since the week of 22 March, UNICEF has reported a 70% to 80% reduction in planned vaccine shipments. With the huge increase in the cost of flights to deliver goods, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to get medical supplies to countries that are running out and to stop airline companies profiteering from the global pandemic?
I welcome the steps that the International Monetary Fund and the G20 have taken so far on debt relief. The Jubilee Debt Campaign estimates that bonds and other private external debt payments for 77 of the poorest countries will total at least $9.4 billion from May to December 2020. With the UK playing its part as a key jurisdiction for international debt contracts, can the Secretary of State explain what legislative options she is exploring to protect countries from being crippled by private debt?
Coronavirus is not just a health emergency; it is an economic and social one too. These secondary impacts of the coronavirus risk doing untold damage to people’s lives. We already see large-scale food insecurity, increases in deaths due to other health problems such as HIV and malaria, and clampdowns on human rights. The Secretary of State mentioned pivoting resources towards covid-19. Does she agree that diverting resources risks a spike in problems in other areas, as we have already seen in the United Kingdom?
Finally, as we saw during the Ebola outbreak, trusted organisations rooted in communities will be crucial to delivering accurate public health messaging and WASH—water, sanitation and hygiene—projects which save lives. There is no substitute for the unique experiences, relationships and specialisms of local and national civil society organisations. They will be vital to tackling the global pandemic. The latest Bond survey found that 52% of small NGOs have had to cut back on programming working across the global south, removing the lifesaving work they do. I am concerned by how little UK aid has gone to local organisations. Will the Secretary of State ensure that any new plan her Department is involved in, including any revised UN global humanitarian response plan, contains a genuine commitment to scaling up a locally led approach, including women and girls’ rights organisations, large and small INGOs, faith groups and trade unions? As ever, I am here to support and assist.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I will do my best to answer them all in turn.
On funding allocation, we have so far committed £276 million for resilience, with multinational organisations and UN appeals alongside the International Red Cross and the Unilever project. Some £380 million is focused on the vaccine, drugs and therapeutics space through CEPI, FIND—the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics—Wellcome and so on, alongside the economic response with the IMF commitment of £150 million and the Gavi investment, which will all be part of the delivery of the vaccine.
I was not aware of the UNICEF statistics on vaccine treatment numbers that the hon. Lady raised, so I will ask my officials to get in touch with her and look closely at that. I thank her for raising that issue with me today.
The event on Monday was co-ordinated by the EU and co-hosted by a number of leaders, including our own Prime Minister. It was a coalition of the willing: a gathering together of those, mostly European, nations who wanted to show their support and solidarity on the international front. We are working closely with the USA on vaccines and more widely on delivery. That continues separately. The USA’s commitment is enormous, and not just internally. I was talking with the new United States Agency for International Development chief, John Barsa earlier in the week about how they are going to focus in the medium term on the substantial commitment the US always makes to supporting vulnerable countries. That will be an ongoing conversation and I think the commitment from USAID is unstinting in that space.
The hon. Lady raised the very important issue of how the conditions go with the funding we put in. That is why we have invested our funds through CEPI and FIND. Both organisations put their money into appropriate projects with an understanding and a contractual relationship that ensures that those scientific programmes will then be accessible to all. It is a really important and secure way—if that is the right way to describe it—of ensuring that UK taxpayers’ money really does reach vulnerable countries when the technologies are discovered.
I completely agree with the hon. Lady on food insecurity. This is absolutely a critical question that we must not lose sight of as we are fighting this disease in the short term. The impact on the most vulnerable countries of food insecurity has not gone away. The threat of locust plagues in just one part of the globe is one critical function we need to get on top of. We are starting to see, as everyone looks up from their own domestic challenges, the great challenge that we have. If we do not support tackling all the other critical preventable death areas, we will find that we cannot tackle this disease. As I said earlier, no one is safe until we are all safe.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. She will be aware of the World Health Organisation, and there have been some criticisms of it. Do we agree with those criticisms, and are we reviewing the funding of the WHO?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank my hon. Friend for that really important question. I do not think anyone would suggest that the WHO is a perfect organisation, but it is an extraordinary organisation, because it has the legitimacy of pretty much every country on the planet. It is a profoundly experienced and wise organisation in all matters health, and it has the ability to reach and to support every country around the globe. We are one of its largest core funders, we have been for many years and we will continue that. There are always lessons to be learned, and in something like a global pandemic, we will no doubt be in a whole new territory of lessons to be learned and of understanding where countries and multilateral organisations were able to do well, but the reality is that the WHO is the central point—the central hub—and we will continue to support it absolutely throughout the crisis and to work, as we have in the past, to find ways to help it become a slicker, more effective organisation in the future.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, and I welcome all measures taken to assist a multilateral international response to this crisis.
The warnings about the impact of covid-19 on the world’s poorest, most vulnerable people have been clear: uncontrolled spread of the virus to fragile states and in refugee camps; a famine of biblical proportions and worldwide economic devastation, resulting in 30 years of the UK’s international development work being undone. However, if we do not tackle covid everywhere, we face the prospect of the infection returning to the UK in a mutated form. What specific measures, beyond aid, are the Government taking to ensure that we tackle covid everywhere? For example, will postponing debt repayments for developing countries be extended beyond 2020, until we know that covid has been eradicated, and will private creditors and multilateral institutions be included in that? What specific public health expertise and medical equipment will be provided to developing countries, and how will wide-scale vaccination programmes be rolled out in countries in conflict, such as Yemen and Syria?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He and I are very aligned in terms of the wider implications and the secondary impacts that we risk seeing unless we can be really forward thinking in supporting the weakest and most vulnerable countries.
The hon. Gentleman asked about debt relief and the work that has been pulled together by the World Bank and the IMF. We have been an integral part of the conversation, as an important member of those organisations. This is very much a rolling activity. Countries are working on building up country plans and sharing those with the World Bank to understand how, as a whole, the economic community can best support the countries we are talking about to move forward. To answer the question about 2020, there is not an answer as yet, because it is a continuing and rolling conversation with each country, led by the World Bank.
We are looking across our portfolio of programme activity, much of which is in the humanitarian space and in the refugee camps, to make sure that we can repurpose and refocus the work we are doing in the short term, so that we do all we can to get the best healthcare outcomes possible in each of those programme areas.
In terms of delivering vaccines, we are committed to investing in Gavi, because it has both the delivery programme and the respect of so many countries around the globe. Those countries in most conflict will challenge us all, but an organisation such as Gavi, with the support of other UN agencies, is the most effective chance we have to ensure that everybody is vaccinated.
Mr Speaker
We now go across to the Chair of the Select Committee. I call Sarah Champion.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
I welcome this statement, but, like the Secretary of State, I am terrified of the pandemic hitting the global south, not least because of the existing weaknesses in its healthcare. What is she doing to support UK NGO organisations to deliver their core work as well as covid-19 work, and is this the time for DFID to develop a global health strategy?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. DFID has, and has had, a very clear strategy, and we were working before the crisis hit on refreshing that and on thinking, over the next few years, how we want to direct the 0.7% that this country has committed to. That continues, perhaps in a more urgent and more focused way than it did before, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right that we must make sure that we think more broadly than just urgent healthcare on covid. The risk of the impacts of preventable deaths in other spheres is very great, unless our programming continues in those key spaces.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) [V]
The executive director of the World Food Programme recently told the Security Council that covid-19 would cause a famine “of biblical proportions”. This will not only cost lives in the immediate term, but—unless nutrition is considered as a central plank of the global covid-19 response—cause lifelong health problems for millions of young children. Will my right hon. Friend therefore commit to ensuring that DFID’s response to covid-19 has nutrition at its very core, to ensure that we do not leave this crisis and sleepwalk into another?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My right hon. Friend is right that nutrition is critical to avoiding long-term negative impacts of covid-19 on child growth and development, so the UK remains committed to preventing and treating malnutrition as part of our commitment to ending the preventable deaths of mothers, newborns and children. We are working with partners and stakeholders to better understand, track and monitor the potential impact of covid on nutrition, and we are continuing to work closely with the Government of Japan to ensure that the Tokyo Nutrition for Growth summit secures new commitments to nutrition.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) [V]
The UN Secretary-General described covid-19 as
“menacing the whole of humanity—and so the whole of humanity must fight back.”
Without an immediate global response, the world risks up to 1 billion people getting covid-19 infections, and millions of deaths in fragile states and developing countries. Time is running out. What further action—on top of what the Secretary of State has said—will the UK Government take to lead the global effort for a global economic and humanitarian response before the situation becomes catastrophic?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The UN Secretary-General is right that this virus is a menace to the whole of humanity. The challenge that we all have—which is why it must be a global, international response—is to ensure that we all appreciate that sorting out our own domestic situations is only stage one of the process of dealing with and getting rid of the virus. We will continue to focus all our efforts on driving the programmes that DFID runs, and on working to get the most coherent and effective outputs from all the multilateral organisations of which we are a part.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
It is a delight to join you remotely, Mr Speaker. I thank my right hon. Friend for all that her Department is doing internationally to support the international vaccine effort and all those in need. How is the Department ensuring that partner countries in receipt of UK aid to support their response to the covid-19 pandemic are also abiding by their human rights obligations, especially at a time when lockdowns and public health measures, although necessary, give Governments a great deal of authority and power, which in some countries risk being deployed to support authoritarian objectives?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
In many countries with weak governance or ongoing conflicts, covid-19 is raising social tensions and posing a challenge to peace processes and respect for human rights, so we are working alongside the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Promotion of human rights is a core part of DFID’s strategy, and that never changes. DFID is taking steps to ensure that both our immediate response to covid and our long-term recovery efforts do not exacerbate conflict, but instead help to build peace and improve governance.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
The closing of borders in many African countries not only means that it is very difficult to get humanitarian aid to refugee camps, where people are living in conditions of overcrowding and poor sanitation; it also means that tens of thousands of migrants are trapped at the borders, sometimes having been abandoned there by people smugglers, or stuck in transit camps. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that people in those conditions are being helped and are avoiding the risk of coronavirus?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The challenge of supporting those refugee camps and getting the relevant supplies in to them has been one that has challenged many as those borders closed in the immediate start of the crisis. We are supporting this through a number of international organisations, notably the International Committee of the Red Cross and UN agencies that still have the best access and safety routes in, to ensure that we do as much as we can to support those communities.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Across the globe, data is key to tackling covid-19. Will my right hon. Friend tell us of the help being given to Tanzania, in particular, where there have been accusations of false data, of night-time secret burials and of a cover-up of the true scale of the crisis?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. The challenge of misinformation and of supporting Governments to be honest and ask for the help they need to support them through their own communities’ crises is critically important, and we will reach out. I will take her point on Tanzania and ask the DFID team to look at that specifically, but the challenge is for all countries to know that we are all in this together and that sharing information and asking for the help they need is the right way forward, rather than trying to pretend that this is not happening.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]
Office for National Statistics figures in the UK have shown that covid-19 hits the poorest the hardest, with mortality rates double those seen in more affluent areas. How much greater, then, is the danger in fragile countries that have nowhere near our healthcare capacity, tiny numbers of healthcare workers and much higher levels of vulnerability? Does the Secretary of State agree that this is not the time to defund the World Health Organisation, as President Trump has done, but rather to ensure that it is properly funded to co-ordinate the fight against this pandemic and save millions of lives? Will she undertake to strengthen rather than undermine the institutions that lead international efforts to defeat this awful pandemic?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I agree that the challenge of understanding and being able to predict who are the most vulnerable groups in the more vulnerable countries is one that is taxing scientists. Even though the communities are perhaps younger, and the virus does not appear to attack young people, the threat of HIV and the risk of malnutrition can create enormous numbers of preventable deaths. There is a huge piece of work going on there. As I have said, the UK remains absolutely committed to the WHO, and I am working closely with all our UN agencies to ensure that we get the very best from them across the globe.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
If the UK is going to avoid future coronavirus pandemics, we are going to need to do a lot more to improve global biosecurity. What is the Department doing in respect of bushmeat and wet markets, whether they are in China or anywhere else in the world?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Conclusive evidence on the origin of the mode of transmission of covid-19 is not yet with us, but it is essential that strict food hygiene and health standards are met and we support the WHO’s position that markets should close if those standards are not met. We welcome China’s decision on 24 February to put in place a ban on the sale for food of all meat other than from livestock or poultry and to work towards a better place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister has spoken well, and I thank her for her comments. I am heartened that we continue to meet our obligations. However, I stress the fact that there are projects that in December were sustained by thousands of pounds of support but have lost it all as people stop all outgoing non-essential direct debits. One project that I support is in Swaziland, and its children are supposed to be here right now singing in concerts in my constituency and around Northern Ireland, raising money to support the orphanage for the year that they have nothing for. What help can we deliver for projects that are not supported by the Government thus far but are in real dire need?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The challenge of fundraising for charities and organisations that have really great objectives and reach out to the most vulnerable is indeed a challenge, but I would refer anyone to Captain Moore’s efforts. It is possible to raise money in different and novel ways, and I encourage everyone out there to come up with brilliant new ideas to support the charities and causes they most believe in.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) [V]
I am very proud to co-chair the all-party group for Fairtrade, alongside the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch). Earlier this year we welcomed a Fairtrade cocoa farmer from the Ivory Coast to Parliament. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what her Department is doing to safeguard and support Fairtrade supply chains during this global covid pandemic?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We are engaging with businesses in the UK and developing countries to understand the challenges they are facing in protecting incomes and livelihoods and in ensuring that supply chains remain resilient. To tackle the factors driving covid-19-induced food insecurity and to keep farmers’ supply chains open, we are repurposing programmes in agriculture, social protection and humanitarian assistance. In all of these we continue to put the poorest and most marginalised at the heart of our programmes to address the underlying causes of chronic hunger.
Business | Timings | Remote division designation |
|---|---|---|
Business Statement | Up to 30 minutes | None |
Census: Motion to approve the draft Census (England and Wales) Order 2020 | Up to 90 minutes | None |
Business of the House
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 11 May will include:
Monday 11 May—Motion to approve the fourth report from the Committee on Standards, followed by a general debate on covid-19.
Tuesday 12 May—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Early Release on Licence) Order 2020, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020, followed by a motion relating to the renewal of the temporary Standing Orders on hybrid proceedings.
Wednesday 13 May—Remaining stages of the Agriculture Bill.
Thursday 14 May—The House will not be sitting.
Friday 15 May—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 18 May will include:
Monday 18 May—Second Reading of a Bill.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Leader of the House, Valerie Vaz, who has five minutes.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement, which takes us up until 18 May. I think we have all adapted to the new way of working. I am still having difficulty in muting and unmuting. Mr Speaker, I do not know if that is something you want to carry over after we come out of this, so that you can mute and unmute us.
I want to start by thanking the team, digital services and everybody from the House staff for working on the remote voting. I voted three times, and all three times I was successful. Joanna Dodd was very helpful to me and a great support, so I want to thank her for her help. All we need now is a way to lobby Ministers virtually, and then I suppose we are done with virtual proceedings. But we do await the Procedure Committee’s report on how the voting is taking place before we take it any further.
I think that Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions are on Monday. Nazanin is out, but she is not home, and Anoosheh and Kylie are still incarcerated. Could I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that we get a proper update on Monday? There is plenty of time to ring Tehran to ask if some clemency can be exercised for our dual nationals.
The public health advice at the start of covid-19 said that it affects our senior citizens, so it is quite surprising that our care homes are only now coming to the forefront. Actually, they have been at the brunt of most of the difficulties that are faced. Could I urge the Leader of the House to ensure that perhaps the mobile testing unit visits the care homes, because they are finding it difficult to get their tests? As care homes have said to me, they are almost forgotten, but they are there looking after people at the end of their life when their families cannot be there; they said they are the forgotten ones. Could he also guarantee that care home staff get their personal protective equipment, and that they will be recognised equally with NHS staff; I am sure he will agree that they should be?
Could I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that there is a statement on the total number of beds that are available in the Nightingale hospitals? It is important for us to know for the next step whether there is capacity so that the NHS can withstand any changes. If the Government had released the 2016 pandemic Exercise Cygnus report—or at least its conclusions—it might have helped with the next stage.
I do not know whether the Leader of the House has seen the next stage from the Irish Government, but they have different sectors—community health; education and childcare; economic activity and work; cultural and social; transport and travel—and all that is going to be set out from 18 May until August. Each one of them has five stages, and it is all subject to the science advice.
It is a pity that the Prime Minister could not use the debate on Monday to come to the House to explain what the next stages are. The Leader of the House knows about the sovereignty of Parliament—he is constantly saying how important Parliament is—and, Mr Speaker, I am sure you will agree with me that that would have been more appropriate. In the meantime, could I ask that the Leader of the Opposition has sight, under Privy Council rules, of the strategy the Government are going to set out on Sunday?
Last week, I raised the fact—I know that it was difficult for people to hear me—that we are not getting responses from Secretaries of State. I wrote to the Secretary State for Education. Could we have an urgent statement on the support that schools are getting in terms of PPE and the school voucher system? I understand that Wonde has offered its help to the Government, but that has been refused. This is really difficult, with some teachers parcelling up food because children are not able to access vouchers.
I would like the Leader of the House to ask the Health Secretary to apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Rosena Allin-Khan), the shadow Minister for Mental Health. How many times have members of the black, Asian and minority ethnic community and women heard that remark? To compare her to a white male, almost telling her to behave the same way as a white male, is totally unacceptable. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could ask him to apologise. She is on the frontline of the covid crisis, and she deserves an apology.
We are in a unique situation, but the whole country has shown great spirit and resilience—the same sort of spirit and resilience that we will be celebrating on Friday, to mark 75 years since VE Day. Let us remember those who sacrificed their lives—their spirit and resilience—so that we can live in peace. We will always remember them.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Lady is right to remember 8 May. I know that you, Mr Speaker, will be laying a wreath on behalf of the whole House to commemorate those in the service of the House— Members and non-Members alike—who died during the war. Commemorations will go on across the country, although obviously in a more limited way than would otherwise have happened. She is right that we will remember them.
The right hon. Lady mentions remote voting. I have a letter from the Chairman of the Procedure Committee—as do you, Mr Speaker—and I believe we will be able to vote remotely next week. I am glad to say that that is in place, and the testing seems to have worked reasonably well. Even I was able to do it, so it is relatively straightforward.
The right hon. Lady, as always, mentions Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I am glad to say that there are Foreign Office questions on Monday, and I will ensure that the Department is aware that this question will be raised and that some answer will be expected.
With regard to testing in care homes, obviously, what is going on in care homes is a matter of the greatest priority for the Government. The deaths that have taken place are a terrible sadness. Testing is being and has been extended. The Government’s target of 100,000 was met last week. All patients discharged from hospital before will be tested going into care homes, so there are improvements taking place.
It is part of the success of the Government’s strategy that the Nightingale hospitals have not been fully utilised. One of the main aims—and, indeed, one of the five tests set out by the Government—was that the NHS should be able to cope with the number of people who had to go into hospital, and that has happened.
The right hon. Lady asked for the next stage to be set out. The Prime Minister said earlier in Prime Minister’s questions that a statement will be made on Sunday, so that people know for the beginning of the working week what the new procedures will be. With the House sitting as it currently is, for three days a week, that is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances, although I am aware—as are you, Mr Speaker—that the ministerial code expects statements to be made to the House in the first instance where possible. I am sure that the House will be kept fully up to date. The debate on Monday, which is the Government responding to requirements from the House—with requests coming to me in particular as Leader of the House—is a method of ensuring that the House is kept fully informed and can debate these issues.
I reiterate my thanks to the Opposition for the serious-minded way in which they have approached this crisis and the cross-party working that there has been, including with the Scottish National party. I hope that relations of that kind will continue. It is not for me to promise briefings outside the House of Commons—that is not my responsibility—but the good will and the positive contribution that has been made is very important.
I have no doubt that announcements will be made in relation to the opening of schools in due course. It would be wrong of me to pre-empt those, because I do not know what I would be pre-empting, so I would be making it up as I went along; I had better not do that. With regard to PPE, we will follow the advice, and the advice at the moment is that in school settings, PPE is not a requirement.
As regards the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, I think he is doing a simply magnificent job. We are very lucky to have somebody who has shown such personal commitment, effort and hard work in the job that he has done and in minimising and dealing with the effects of this terrible, unexpected and unprecedented crisis; I am not, therefore, going to ask him to apologise. In the cut and thrust of debate, people are entitled to say things and that is perfectly legitimate.
The right hon. Lady was right to say at the end of her contribution that the resilience we showed 75 years ago is what we are showing now.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) [V]
The House authorities are indeed to be warmly congratulated on working at speed to get the hybrid system that we are using now up and running. I believe that, this morning, Mr Speaker authorised electronic voting, which is a welcome way to ensure that business can continue to be conducted. We must, though, emphasise the temporary nature of these measures and the unshakeable primacy of meeting, debating and voting in person. Will the Leader of the House therefore give some thought to a hybrid voting system to complement the hybrid Chamber system? Those present could vote in person, and there could be an expanded role for proxies and electronic voting for those who are absent.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and assure him that I, too, am looking forward to returning as soon as possible to the tried-and-tested means of a physical Parliament, which has significant advantages over a virtual Parliament. Although it has been necessary to begin to look for alternative solutions on a temporary basis to ensure that scrutiny can continue, it is intended only to be temporary. I am grateful to the Procedure Committee for its swift assessment of the House’s voting system, but we want to get back to a fully physical voting system, not a hybrid system.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
May I commend our digital team for perfecting electronic voting? I am pleased that we now have a system of voting that is simple, safe and secure, and unlike the Leader of the House I look forward to it becoming a permanent aspect of our procedures.
A lot of disquiet has been expressed—including by you, Mr Speaker—that a major statement of Government policy in relation to the crisis should be made first to the press rather than to Parliament. I had expected that there might be something on today’s Order Paper to indicate a Government statement on Monday. Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will indeed be such a statement to the House, and that it will be made by the Prime Minister himself?
Neil Ferguson’s resignation shows the importance of the Government leading by example. At a time when we are obliging many in the population to endure the privations of lockdown, it seems very off-message for us to be talking about how we can get out of it. Will the Leader of the House tell us what actually requires the physical presence of MPs in the Parliament building? What is it that cannot be done remotely? I believe we should embrace the technological changes made necessary by this crisis and try to make them work better, not engage with them with stubborn resistance and insist that they are but temporary. To that end, I return to the point that I raised last week: we talk of a hybrid Parliament, but in fact what we have achieved is the ability for some to join the physical discussion in the Chamber remotely. The entire thing is still contingent on a physical meeting taking place in the Commons Chamber.
Surely it is now time to consider making use of the digital platform to allow a fully virtual sitting of Parliament. I know that our staff have the expertise and capability to make that happen. It would ensure that there are not two classes of participant and that all Members—including you, Mr Speaker—are on a level playing field. Does the Leader of the House know of any reason why this cannot be done under the provisions currently agreed? If there is a reason as to why the current Standing Orders prohibit such an experiment, will he take the opportunity of the review scheduled for next Tuesday to introduce whatever changes are necessary to make this happen?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments with regard to the digital voting, and for the tribute he paid to the House staff for doing that. I re-emphasise its temporary nature. We have proceeded with almost unanimous consent to achieve a hybrid Parliament. We would not have done so had people thought this was a sleight of hand—a prestidigitation—to try to change our procedures on a permanent basis. It has been important to maintain the good will of all parliamentarians.
As regards the statement on Sunday, I think the Prime Minister’s answer at Prime Minister’s questions was the right one. Although the week starts on a Sunday, the business week starts on a Monday, therefore the announcement is being made in preparation for the business week on a Monday. It is therefore the right time to do it, but I can confirm that there will be a statement on Monday. [Interruption.] I notice some giggles in the Chamber, although, Mr Speaker, I am not sure I am meant to notice the giggles emanating from the Chair. It slightly surprises me, because I do not think there are any plans for the House to meet on Sunday.
As regards the hybridity of this Chamber, this House must lead by example. The Government have set out in their guidelines that those who cannot work from home are entitled to and ought to carry on working, especially those in crucial roles. To pretend our democracy is not crucial undermines and undervalues the whole purpose of our democracy. What goes on here—the holding to account and the legislation—is essential, and when we are asking other people to work and to go to their places of work, we should not be ones who are exempt from that. I am glad, therefore, that we have made a hybrid system work.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con) [V]
Can I thank my right hon. Friend for giving the assurance that there will be a statement on Monday, because that will enable Members to be able to ask questions on the statement, which they would not be able to do if it was just a mere introduction to a debate without the ability to intervene? May I also ask my right hon. Friend what he will do to ensure that the system of named day written questions works for the benefit of Back Benchers and their constituents? A host of named day questions are not being answered on time or at all, and I am sorry to say that the Department of Health and Social Care is the worst offender. One question that it has answered was from me, asking how many it had not answered. When that came in on Monday, it showed that figure to be more than 100, and I do not think any of those questions have been answered since, and a whole lot more are in the queue. Will my right hon. Friend do something to help us on that?
Mr Rees-Mogg
One of the reasons why everyone likes and admires my hon. Friend so much is that only he would think up the question of asking how many questions had not been answered. It is a splendid question that should be asked regularly, although most politicians might not be able to give an accurate answer. It is really important that written questions and named day questions are answered. I would, however, ask the House to have some sympathy for the Department of Health and Social Care under these very extraordinary circumstances. Whereas I would normally go in with all cudgels waving, I think with that particular Department under the current circumstances, a degree of latitude is allowable.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
Good afternoon from a bright and sunny Gateshead. The Backbench Business Committee would welcome any indication of whether Backbench Business debates will be included in the House business programme any time soon. If so, how much time is likely to be allocated to facilitate such debates?
We received and considered 10 new applications yesterday, all on different specific aspects of the Government’s response to the covid-19 pandemic. I realise that a general debate on the Government’s response is to be scheduled for Monday, but there is a real appetite to discuss, debate and question particular aspects, such as the job retention furlough scheme, the impact on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, support for the tourism sector, universal basic income, support for families, mental health support for frontline workers, education of vulnerable children and the business interruption loan scheme. All those are requests that we have dealt with, and Members have a thirst for having those topics debated in detail and getting good responses from Ministers. With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I remind all MPs that they can add their names as wanting to speak in debates on any application, whatever side of the argument they are on. The Committee wants party balance and both sides of the debate.
On the covid-19 response, could special consideration be given to making sure that domiciliary care workers who go from home to home to look after vulnerable people are tested? I am really concerned, and I think a lot of those domiciliary care workers are concerned, that they might not know they have covid-19 because of asymptomatic positives. That is an aspect of where precedence should, I believe, be given to care workers.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Anyone who now needs a test is able to get one, so I can give some comfort on domiciliary workers. As regards Backbench Business debates, I understand that the hon. Gentleman has also written to me. These debates are important and we want to get them back as soon as possible, but in the short term the priority has been scrutiny and legislation. The hybrid Chamber is not a perfect substitute for the normal Chamber and our normal working practices, and the technology and capacity does not yet facilitate Backbench Business debates; however, I think that it is a strong argument for our physical return. I do not know what the announcement will be on Sunday, but I do feel that Parliament has a leadership role in whatever is announced, and we should always be slightly ahead of what we are expecting the British public to do.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) [V]
It is unsurprising that the SNP should prefer the virtual world to the real world, Mr Speaker, but that is perhaps for another day. The Leader of the House, because he is a diligent constituency MP, will know the significance of horticulture for our economy. It provides some £1.5 billion for our national finances, yet it is in serious trouble in this crisis. The Horticultural Trades Association estimates that £200 million of perishable products will be lost unless action is taken quickly. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange for a Minister to come to the House to speak about how the sector can be assisted, perhaps by an adjustment to the loans scheme, special grant funding and the reopening of garden centres with all the necessary precautions?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is always my wish to facilitate my right hon. Friend, and I am glad to say that there will be Treasury questions on 18 May followed by Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on 19 May, when these important issues may be raised, but I recognise and agree with him that the horticultural sector is a crucial one.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) [V]
The idea that workers will hear the Prime Minister on Sunday and change what they were going to do on Monday, and that businesses up and down the land will suddenly be able to respond from Sunday to Monday morning is utterly preposterous. The reason the Prime Minister is making the statement on Sunday is that he wants to avoid the House of Commons. You, Mr Speaker, are quite right to have already told him off on that basis. I am begging the Leader of the House to please make sure that we have more time to ask questions of Government Ministers. At the moment, we end the day early and we are not sitting on Thursdays. Ministers are not coming to the Chamber enough to answer questions, which we have in buckletloads in our constituencies. In my own patch yesterday, we had a horrific incident where one man was murdered and three others were stabbed. We want to talk about the issues that are happening in our constituencies. We need to challenge the Government on these issues and we cannot if the Prime Minister will not even come to the House.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Well, the Prime Minister was in the House earlier on, but I accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying in that a virtual Parliament is not a substitute for the real Parliament. Apart from anything else, we are missing the constant chirruping from the hon. Gentleman.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
Like me, the Leader of the House must have received many emails from constituents whose holidays have been cancelled and who save annually for just one holiday. Some travel companies are refusing refunds completely while others are offering refunds after 10 to 12 weeks. I know that Ministers are working on this with the industry, but may we have a statement on how we are going to protect our constituents’ statutory rights?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, which, as he has said, has been a concern for many who made travel plans prior to the covid-19 outbreak. There has been no change to either the package travel regulations or EU regulation 261, so consumers retain their right to request a refund. In line with existing legislation, the Government have been clear that if a consumer asks for a refund it must be paid. We recognise the challenges that businesses are facing in processing large volumes of such requests and the regulator is taking a balanced and proportionate approach to enforcement to help manage and mitigate covid-19 impacts. We have been clear, however, that it should not be unduly difficult for passengers to receive a refund and this should be done in a timely manner.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) [V]
I would like to check with my right hon. Friend what consideration he gave to using the proxy voting for baby leave system for Members of Parliament to vote during this time as opposed to an electronic voting system. My grave concern is that if there are technical problems, Members of Parliament may not be able to vote in some very critical votes in the near future.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful for my right hon. Friend’s question; she herself was such a distinguished Leader of the House. The issue is the technical problems one rather than the proxy one. The proxy vote would not necessarily have helped because it would have brought people to the House, we would have had Divisions, and that would not necessarily have solved the problem that we were trying to address. But there are measures in place for technical problems. A Member who is having difficulty voting on the Members’ hub will be able to text or email the relevant House office leaving a telephone number. House staff will immediately call the Member back on that number and, once they have performed the necessary checks and are satisfied that it is indeed the Member, arrange for the Member’s vote to be recorded.
More broadly, the changes that have been made to allow for the creation of a hybrid Parliament are strictly temporary and will last for only as long as a completely physical Parliament is impossible. Within that time, Mr Speaker, if you think that a Division is not working properly, you have the ability to stop the Division for it to be re-held at a later stage. In addition, people will always be able to check their vote because it is a public rather than a private vote.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Fifty per cent. of bed and breakfasts do not pay business rates, the events industry often does not pay business rates either because it uses outside spaces, and language schools are excluded from the Government’s support for tourism. I have tried to raise this issue with Ministers directly in writing, but the Government have not reissued the document, “Government ministers and responsibilities”, which lists the private and direct contacts for Ministers, since 11 October 2019, and we are ending up getting generic responses from civil servants. Will the Leader of the House make sure that that document is reissued to us, either publicly or privately, so that we can directly contact Ministers and their private offices rather than just the Department?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, which has recently been a matter of correspondence between the shadow Leader of the House and me. We hope to be able to reissue the list of email addresses that can be used by Members later today, but certainly within the next few days.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) [V]
As a former small business owner, I understand how vital it is to get people who are furloughed back to work as soon as it is safe for them to do so in order to support the economy. A strong export market is particularly important for companies in my constituency such as Perkins and General Electric. May I therefore ask the Leader of the House when he could find time for discussing global supply chain resilience post this coronavirus lockdown?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue and for her characteristic championship of her constituency and its businesses. The Government are very aware of the importance of global supply chains. That is one of the reasons we have taken a decision to ensure that the supply chains between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are supported, for example. The Secretary of State for International Trade recently attended the G20 trade ministerial meeting, where she called for trade to keep flowing and the maintenance of the supply of essential goods and services during this unprecedented time. I also note that the crisis has demonstrated the excellent job that many have done in keeping supplies going, including supermarkets maintaining essential supplies that people rely on. There are understandable concerns about this issue, but it could be raised in the debate on Monday.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
I have a particularly harrowing case in my constituency: a young couple who had a taxi business, Leanne and Fraser Gair. They now have no income whatsoever and have fallen through what I might call the floorboards of the safety net. Will the Leader of the House be kind enough to agree with me that it would be helpful if a Minister came to the House to outline to Members like me how we can speedily try to help these people, pick them up off the floor and get them going again?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. I think all of us as constituency MPs have businesses that we would like to provide more help to and that find they cannot apply for the scheme they want. The Treasury has made enormous strides to help people. There are Treasury questions on 18 May, when this matter can be raised. The schemes are enormous and widespread, but there are some who fall through the cracks.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I would like to thank the Speaker, my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for all their work on electronic voting. Have we test-proofed the systems to ensure they are robust against cyber-interference?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The issue of cyber-security is indeed important. I can assure my hon. Friend that Mr Speaker has taken a personal and strong interest in this matter. The Procedure Committee has done a full assessment of the proceedings and confirmed that they are ready to deploy. We have taken proper advice from Government sources on cyber-security to ensure that the system is as robust as possible, but there is the final safeguard that Members’ names are published. They are therefore able to check that their vote has been properly recorded, in the highly unlikely event of any cyber-attack.
Census
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
I beg to move,
That items 2 (resident particulars), 5, 6 (visitor particulars), 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 (demographic particulars), 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 36(d) (education and employment particulars), 41, 42, 43 (accommodation particulars), 45, 46 (additional particulars for individual returns) in Schedule 2, and items 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Schedule 3 to the draft Census (England and Wales) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 2 March, be approved.
It is a pleasure to join you for my first time in the Chamber under these hybrid arrangements, Mr Speaker.
The draft Order in Council was laid before both Houses on 2 March, under the provisions of the Census Act 1920. It provides for the 22nd census of England and Wales to take place on 21 March next year. It prescribes the date of the census, the people to be counted, the people responsible for making a census return and the information to be given in those returns. The draft order gives effect to the recommendations of the UK Statistics Authority and its executive arm, the Office for National Statistics, as set out in its December 2018 White Paper.
The primary aim of the census is to provide accurate data on the population, so the information that it provides includes people’s characteristics, education, religion, ethnicity, working life and health. It gives decision makers in national and local government, as well as in community groups, charities and businesses, the opportunity to better serve communities and individuals in the UK. It enables a wide range of services and future planning to be supported.
The statutory instrument before us today is unusual, with a mixed procedure. It is principally subject to the draft negative procedure, but under the terms of the 1920 Act, some questions—those printed in italics in the draft order—may be included in the census only if they are approved by an affirmative resolution of both Houses. It is with those elements of the order that the motion before us is concerned. They include questions on health, education and national identity. If the House wishes to debate the census more broadly, I would of course be happy to try to answer hon. Members’ questions, but would emphasise that the scope of the motion is somewhat narrow.
The draft order is the first stage of the secondary legislation necessary for a census to be held. The order covers England and Wales. Subject to the approval of this Order in Council, the Government will bring forward census regulations for England, which will set out the final questions and govern much of the operation of the census. Those regulations will describe the content and functionality of the online forms for this, the first predominantly online census. It will also contain copies of the corresponding paper questionnaires. Separate regulations for the census in Wales will be laid before the Welsh Parliament by the Welsh Government. Hon. and right hon. Members will be aware that the census order for Scotland has already been approved by the Scottish Parliament, and the census order for Northern Ireland has been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly. Together, these three statutory instruments allow for the 2021 census to take place on the same date across the United Kingdom.
Let me turn to the proposals for the census. The ONS’s work has been informed by extensive consultation, research and engagement. The majority of questions will stay the same as in 2011 to ensure comparability of data between censuses. New questions or response options are only included after research and consultation that provide compelling evidence for their inclusion. For 2021, there will be new questions on past service in the armed forces, and new voluntary questions on sexual orientation and gender identity.
As I have mentioned briefly already, the 2021 census will be predominantly online, making it easier for people to take part when and how they want. Of course, help —including language support and paper forms—will be available for those who need it. Nobody will be missed out and everybody can identify as they wish. This will ensure that the 2021 census reflects the society we live in today, and that will enable national and local government, community groups, charities and businesses to better serve communities and individuals across the country.
Our aim is for the census to be the most inclusive ever, so the ONS will work with local groups and organisations across the country to raise awareness of the census, to promote the different response options and the new search-as-you-type functionality, and to support people in completing the census online or on paper. To be successful in its aims, the census relies on the willing support and participation of the public, on whose behalf the information is collected. With hon. Members’ help and support to promote awareness of the census and its benefits in all our communities, the ONS can ensure that the ’21 census provides reliable data that benefits all our constituents.
The census is unique in the insights that it provides into our nation and the data it provides to support policy making nationally and locally. Data from the census can inform a wide range of planning decisions, including on school places, hospital beds, GP and dental services, where to build houses and roads, and businesses’ decisions on where and in what to invest. The census provides us with the opportunity to build a detailed and comprehensive picture of the nation.
At this point I will mention, as I am sure this will come up in the debate, that social distancing measures have of course meant that some national events have been postponed or cancelled. The 2021 census, which will be primarily online, is still nearly a year away, and the ONS is working to deliver it as planned, but we will continue to assess the situation and any implications for the census, including appropriate contingency measures, should they be needed.
Community engagement will very much go ahead and onwards from now, including with local government in all our areas, to help ensure that everybody can take part. To this end, dedicated staff on the ground will have a particular focus on hard-to-reach communities, which I know will be welcome to all Members. I commend the draft order to the House, and look forward to our debate.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition Front Bench, supporting changes to make a more inclusive census that is fit for the 21st century.
The census is an important tool for taking a snapshot of the country as it is today, useful for Government planning now and precious to the historians of the future, who will use this vast record of how we live our lives. Perhaps the most telling way in which this is a 21st-century census is the ambition that the majority of respondents will complete the census online. For many, this will make completing the census easier and collating the data faster. However, I urge the Minister not to forget those who are still digitally excluded.
This legislation will introduce new voluntary questions about gender identity and sexual orientation, allowing as yet unknown numbers of lesbian, gay and bisexual citizens, as well as those who have transitioned their gender identity, the chance to be recognised in official statistics. This is a huge step forward for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people of this country. It is not only symbolically important, but practically necessary. Information derived from the census helps to inform policy, plan services and distribute resources effectively to local government and health authorities. By building a clear picture of LGBT communities, resources can be targeted more effectively. I am proud of the progress that we are making on LGBT equality, which started under the previous Labour Government, by repealing the discriminatory section 28, introducing civil partnerships and equalising the age of consent. We are now seeing an LGBT-inclusive census for 2021.
Labour is proud to support the LGBT community, and our support has never wavered. Although this is not personally the Minister’s responsibility, I cannot give up the opportunity to remind her that we are still waiting for her Government to publish the results of their consultation on reform of the outdated Gender Recognition Act 2004. I am sure that the House and the LGBT community, who will be following the progress made on the census today, would really appreciate an update from the Government for their reason in delaying reform of that Act.
With regard to statistics, the LGBT community is currently a hidden population. Although we do not have accurate data about the size of the community, we do know that it has been hit hard by a decade of Tory austerity, preventing the development of truly specialist LGBT services, and we know that homophobic and transphobic hate crimes are on the rise. Since 2014, offences against gay, lesbian and bisexual people have doubled, while offences against trans people have trebled. This analysis was released after two women were attacked on a bus in London last year for refusing to kiss in front of a group of men. That is just one example of LGBT hate crime that was recorded.
The position of LGBT homeless people warrants particular attention in this discussion, not least given the shocking statistic that up to 24% of the youth homeless population are from the LGBT community. I pay tribute to the Albert Kennedy Trust for its continued work in this area, but the unprecedented rise in homelessness under this Government is a national shame. I ask the Minister whether, when the census data eventually exposes the size of this community, which has been neglected for so long, the Government will finally provide the specialist LGBT services that are so desperately needed, including support for those who are homeless?
The Labour party fully supports the inclusion of a new question about armed forces personnel and veterans in the census. This will ensure that charities, public bodies and service providers will be able to meet the needs of this community. It is right and proper that those who have stood up and served our country are recognised and supported when they return to civilian life. Referring back to my earlier points on homelessness, it is a scandal that so many veterans find themselves street homeless.
If minority groups are represented in the census, they will have a better chance of receiving the resources they need. That is why we warmly welcome the inclusion of the Roma community in the 2021 census. The Roma are among the most disadvantaged people in the country and have poorer outcomes in key areas such as health and education. The community has faced overt discrimination and abuse for generations. Data about this community will hopefully lead to better resource allocation.
Last year, the Women and Equalities Committee released an eye-opening report, making a damning critique of the progress made in addressing inequalities faced by Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. I challenge the Government to do more to improve the outcomes in education and health and to tackle discrimination and hate crime, as well as violence against women and girls. Today’s inclusion of Roma in the next census is an important step in that, but will the Minister say more about what she hopes the Government will do, or what she believes they have done, to develop a clear and effective plan to support Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities?
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) hope to speak in this debate about the issues raised by the Sikh communities that they represent in this place. They will express how their constituents want to see the campaign for the inclusion of a Sikh tick box in the ethnic identity question raised in our discussions this afternoon. There is no doubt that policy decisions have overlooked the Sikh community in our country. Up-to-date statistics are few and far between, but the UK Sikh survey in 2016 found that almost one in five Sikhs had encountered discrimination in public places over a year, with Sikhs who wear religious iconography or clothing most likely to experience abuse. The report stated that the Government had
“systematically failed the minority Sikh community by not adequately responding to the disproportionate impact of racism and hate crime targeting Sikhs since 9/11.”
A freedom of information request submitted by the Network of Sikh Organisations revealed that 28% of victims recorded under the Islamophobic hate crime category during 2015 were in fact non-Muslims. Indeed, in 2018 we saw a Sikh visitor to our Parliament racially attacked, with his turban ripped off while queuing for the security checks to enter Parliament. A lack of accurate data can mean that such anti-Sikh hate crimes are perhaps neglected, because many are inaccurately recorded. Indeed, evidence suggests that the census has historically underestimated the Sikh community in the UK. For example, Sikhs are believed to constitute just 1% of the London population, yet account for 5% of deaths among homeless men. Either the Sikh population is higher than estimated, or the Sikh community has been disproportionately affected by homelessness. That point is especially pertinent in the context of the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus pandemic on minority communities, including health and social care workers.
How does the Minister plan to address such inequalities while we lack the accurate data needed on the Sikh community? Does she recognise that the chronic statistical under-reporting of communities such as the Sikh community could allow discrimination to go unnoticed? Currently, only data collected under the ethnicity question in the census is used by public bodies for resource allocation and service planning decisions. We know that data collected under the optional question of religion would be more accurate in reflecting the Sikh community. The religion question should not be made compulsory, but what action could be taken to ensure that the census data collected on religion could be used by public bodies in the same way that data on ethnic groups is handled?
Lastly, will the Minister outline what action the Government are taking to ensure that the Sikh community does not remain statistically invisible to law and policy makers? It is clearer now more than ever that minority groups can no longer be left invisible to those responsible for making public policy decisions.
We do not want to see delay in the census, and we support the important changes in the legislation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses in her closing remarks.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am now introducing a time limit of five minutes. I advise hon. Members who are speaking virtually to have a timing device visible.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Frankly, this measure is a slap in the face for the Sikh community, a community that has contributed so much to our country not only in recent years, but over the past couple of centuries of our joint history. As we know, this sizeable, dynamic community is contributing in business, the professions, the armed forces—we recorded last year the huge contribution and the vast number of deaths in world war one—politics, the media and medicine. Only a month or so ago, that was highlighted by the death of Manjeet Singh Riyat, the A&E leader at Royal Derby Hospital. Clearly, the Sikh community feel strongly about this: in the 2011 census, 83,000 ticked the box saying “Other” and wrote in, “Sikh”.
Why does this matter? First, because Sikhs have been legally recognised as an ethnic group for nearly 40 years, since a House of Lords ruling in 1983. The ethnic group set question was only introduced in the 1991 census. At that time, the Office for National Statistics stated that it was introduced to help public bodies assess equal opportunities and develop anti-discrimination policies. Ethnic group data, not religious data, is what is used by public bodies to make decisions on the allocation of resources and the provision of public services. The Prime Minister’s most recent race disparity audit indicated that there were 176 datasets spanning sectors from housing and education to employment, health and the criminal justice system, but no data on Sikhs. Effectively, they are invisible. As the covid-19 crisis has shown, there has been no systematic collection of data on the number of Sikhs tested as positive or on the number who have tragically died, even though we are inquiring into the question of differentiation in different groups of health outcomes. Although they come to prominence when a key worker dies, nobody is actually properly collecting the data. Quite frankly, we either need to change the local practice of how this is assessed and how Departments work, or we need an additional box in the census. I would argue that one is probably quite a bit simpler than the other.
I am frankly still perplexed by the Government’s stubbornness on this issue. It seems perverse of the Government to marginalise and ignore this important community and our society. The Minister mentioned bringing forward further orders on the census at a later stage, so I ask her, even at this late stage, to restore the Sikh community to their proper place in the census.
I will also touch on another matter: how we run the census in the first place. The Minister rightly indicated some improvements and changes, but fundamentally, the basic way of collecting the census remains unchanged over the last couple of centuries. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) said that this is a snapshot. It is, but as public bodies, we are still using data from 2011, and in many of our constituencies and right the way across the country, there have been very significant changes. Are we capturing that or is there a better way of doing this? Would it not be better now, in the modern age of technology, to look at, for example, creating a virtual national register and having up-to-date information undertaken by sampling and polling?
A whole number of areas are going to be changed by the coronavirus epidemic, including travel to work, work patterns and holiday patterns. A huge range of changes will take place, and we need to be able to capture those in real time. I therefore ask the Minister to look at that, and, by the way, there is an additional layer of her responsibilities where this would be an advantage: we could end up with a much more accurate and comprehensive electoral register, and do it much cheaper.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and her Department for the work that she has done on this subject so far. The House can probably tell by my accent that I am not actually Cornish-born. While many proud Cornishmen and women are Cornish by birth, some are Cornish by choice. I have adopted Cornwall as my home and Cornwall has adopted me, and I am grateful to live its abundant heritage, flamboyant culture and its unique way of life every day. It is not all sandy toes and salty kisses, but Cornwall is my family’s home and roots for our daughter as she grows. As much as I love and care for Cornwall and the people I represent, I will never actually be Cornish and I certainly do not pretend to be. I was not born there. Instead, I consider this subject as objectively as possible and with a sense of fair play.
Recently, we celebrated the sixth anniversary of the recognition of the Cornish as a national minority through the framework convention for the protection of national minorities under the Council of Europe. When Cornwall received this recognition, the Government at the time pledged that the Cornish would now be afforded “the same status” as the UK’s other Celtic people—the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish.
Since then, the Government and Cornwall Council have worked together to try to further the cause. I have no doubt that the inclusion of a Cornish tick box in the next census in 2021 would go a long way to our achieving the same status as our fellow Celts. This would mark a significant milestone in our journey as a national minority. I say with deep regret that the Cornish are the only national minority who would be denied a tick box if the present draft of the 2021 census is to be agreed, so there is more to do to ensure that the Cornish are treated in the same manner as the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish, despite the equal minority status.
I believe that there will be an option for people who identify as Cornish to tick the “Other” box. In the 2011 census, 83,966 people in Britain ticked the “Other” box and physically wrote “Cornish” as their national identity. Within Cornwall, that total was 73,220, or 14% of the total population. We can assume that many more thousands would have ticked the Cornish box had the option been available. By way of comparison, in the 2001 census, when there was no Welsh tick box, 14% of Welsh residents wrote the word “Welsh”. In 2011, when a tick box was available for the Welsh, the percentage who recorded themselves as Welsh rose to 67%. That clearly indicates that without a tick box, there is significant under-counting of an important national minority.
An education survey of schoolchildren in Cornwall showed that more than 50% of the children identified themselves as Cornish. Identifying as Cornish is a growing trend among our young people, rather than a dated one. The Cornish are proud in every sense of the word, and we must remember that there are thousands of Cornish men and women who do not live in Cornwall. It was once said that it was possible to find a Cornishman in every mine on earth. Although we can give only the Cornish people living here the opportunity to tick their box, I believe it is important that we make that an effortless and straightforward exercise.
The census is not just a tool for identity; as we know, it is much more than that. The census is a once-in-a-decade data collection exercise of epic proportions. It asks questions of all of us, our households and our homes. In completing it, we help to build a detailed snapshot of our society. Information from the census helps the Government and local authorities plan and fund our local services, such as health, education and highways. That helps to ensure that funds are allocated where they are most needed.
In a motion put to full council last year, all 123 elected members of Cornwall Council—at the time, that included me—voted in favour of supporting a Cornish tick box at the next census. Councillors from all political groups, along with the Cornish MPs, have campaigned for a tick box for many years. As a newly elected MP, I am probably rather late to this particular party. However, Cornwall’s minority status and how we quantify that is extremely important to Cornwall and the Cornish people, wherever they happen to live, and therefore it is important to me.
I look forward during my time in this place to working closely with my Cornish colleagues and Ministers to further this cause, to ensure that we meet the obligations set out six years ago and demonstrate a positive commitment to Cornwall’s national identity and culture. Consideration of a tick box at the 2021 census would be a most welcome start.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
First, I want to congratulate those in Wales, including my Plaid Cymru colleagues, who have campaigned hard for the right of Welsh people to identify as Asian Welsh or black Welsh in the ethic question if they so desire. That reflects the reality in Wales today, and I am glad that the Welsh Government and the ONS have responded. I am, however, concerned that the census order does not reflect that change in the tick box options. Will the Minister therefore assure us that the census regulations, when they are laid before Parliament and in the Senedd, will reflect that change?
This will be the first predominantly digital census, which I welcome. However, I am concerned about the robustness of the process where there is poor internet or no internet at all, as is the case in much of rural Wales. Will the Minister therefore update us on the arrangements with community organisations to support people to access the census, and give us the number of those who will need digital support or may want a paper copy instead?
There are good census datasets, from the 19th century onwards, on the number, percentage, location and so on of Welsh speakers, but we have no information about Welsh speakers in other parts of the UK. In the 2001 census, some respondents in England were intrigued by question 17, which was marked “intentionally left blank”. That was because question 17 in Wales asked about the Welsh language ability of respondents—something that was not deemed to be required in England. However, the 2011 census showed that 507,000 people in England were Welsh-born. If 20% of those people speak Welsh, that is another 100,000 Welsh speakers on top of the 600,000 in Wales. That was a missed opportunity, because we have a target in Wales of increasing the number of Welsh speakers to 1 million. Will the Minister, even at this late stage, consider including a question on the Welsh language in the census in England?
Finally, I would like to add my voice and those of my Plaid Cymru colleagues to the call for a Cornish identity tick box, for which Cornish Members rightly make a strong case, as we have just heard. In 2001, as we heard, there was no option for a Welsh tick box, so handy little stickers the size of the tick box were produced by a person or persons unknown, allowing people to tick that box, even though it was not part of the official form. There was also a write-in option, and 14% of Welsh people wrote “Welsh” in the “Other” box. Does that mean that only 14% of people at the time in Wales identified themselves as Welsh? No, it was a fault with the question. In the following census, there was a tick box, and the percentage of self-identifying Welsh people shot up to 67%.
Enabling Cornish people to assert their national identity will not only allow them to feel represented, but give us a correct result as to the Cornish identity in 2021. Let me therefore conclude by saying meur ras, or diolch yn fawr in Welsh.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]
As I make my maiden virtual speech, some people will say that the last thing we should be worrying about at the moment is a national census. Well, I disagree. In all the circumstances, this is an excellent moment to decide how we best prepare for the census. An awful lot has happened to our country in the past 10 years, and the world has changed. Accordingly, it is more important than ever that we know precisely how many people actually live in the country. Is it 65 million, 70 million or 75 million? What is the number?
Stemming from that, we need to deal with an issue that has been dodged for so long: how many Members of Parliament should there be? I am not au fait with the Government’s current thinking as to how many Members of the House of Lords there should be, but I was one of those colleagues who were content to see the number of Members of Parliament reduced from 650 to 600. When we get the accurate figures for the number of people living in this country, I would hope that all Members of Parliament would represent roughly the same number of people.
I would also like to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister a little more detail as to how the census will be conducted, what the penalties will be for failure to comply and over what period it will be carried out. We have heard from colleagues about the Sikh community being represented in the new questions. I would like to know the basis on which the new questions were included and who made the decisions. The more questions we include, and the more complicated the census becomes, the less accurate it will perhaps be.
Apparently, the Government are hoping that 70% of respondents will fill in the form online, and paper copies will be made available only on request. Surely, it would make more sense and be more cost-effective to send people both the paper copy and the online details. How many people—particularly the elderly and the vulnerable—still do not have access to a computer at home? Will there be a cost for people who request paper copies?
With that in mind, I would like to raise a further issue with regard to accessibility. What provisions are being made to ensure that the census is accessible to people who are blind or partially sighted? Will it be made available in large print, audio description or Braille? In addition, what provisions will be made for those for whom English is not their first language? Will the census be made available in other languages, and what languages will those be? While on the subject of accessibility, I would also like clarification of the special arrangements available to ensure that those who live in communal establishments rather than individual households are counted.
I note that consideration is being given to changing the question on long-term health and disabilities, and I would welcome some clarification on that. Will the census now make a distinction between mental and physical health, and what guidance will there be on answering the relevant question?
We need to think sharply about the purpose of this census. It is not to pry into people’s lives, but to make sure that we understand and get a real sense of what we are as a country. Let me pluck out just one bit of information: fair allocations of money in each area. Taking that into account, we need to encourage respondents to fill out the census online, so it will be more important than ever to ensure that individual personal data is secure. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister: is there a robust system in place to ensure that no sensitive data is susceptible to cyber-attacks, and is there a contingency plan if a successful attack does happen?
There is no point in conducting what will inevitably be an expensive census unless we put the information to good use. That debate can perhaps wait for another time, but the evidence produced by the census will undoubtedly prove that Southend should be made a city.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
I am delighted to speak in this debate because I have long waited for an opportunity to raise an issue that is very important to many of my Sikh constituents in Bedford and Kempston. In advance of the debate, Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh gurdwaras in Bedford and Kempston and local residents got in touch, asking me to make the case for the inclusion of a Sikh ethnicity tick box in the next census.
The ONS has considered changes to the ethnic group question, including the introduction of a Sikh tick box, but following research and consultation, it decided not to recommend implementing those changes. After a decade of many UK Sikhs making the case for Sikhism to be counted as a separate ethnic group, when it has been legally recognised as such for the last 40 years, that was very disappointing.
Sikhism is already an option under the religion question on the census, but Sikhs also identify as a religio-ethnic community, and many therefore wish it to be considered an ethnicity on the form. In the 2011 census, more than 83,000 Sikhs—or 20%—rejected the 18 existing ethnic tick boxes and chose instead to tick “Other” and write “Sikh”. Their preferred option is to include a Sikh tick box in the ethnic group question, in addition to the Sikh tick box in the religion question.
It is important to remember the reason behind this. This is not just a question of identity, but more about asserting a stake in society, which can be very difficult for minority groups. Ethnic groups specified in the census are used by public bodies for resource allocation, to inform policy development and make service planning decisions. Without a Sikh tick-box response option to the ethnicity question in the 2022 census, how can Sikhs be properly monitored by public bodies in the exercise of the public sector equality duty? Many Sikhs have campaigned for this so that action can be taken to address major issues such as bullying, intimidation and hate crimes against the community.
We do not even have an accurate count of the Sikh population in the UK because the optional box on religion is so poorly answered. While official data recorded the Sikh population in the UK at around 430,000 in the 2011 census, the real estimate is between 600,000 and 700,000. What is the point of collecting data if it is not accurate? That is vital, and not only because the point of the census is for public bodies, including the Government and local authorities, to formulate relevant policy and appropriate services. As covid-19 has exposed, it is about so much more. The high number of black, Asian and minority ethnic deaths is now the subject of an official inquiry. If Sikhs are not identifying in accurate numbers under the religion census box—and we know that they are not—the Government do not know what proportion of Sikhs have tested positive for covid-19 or tragically died. Sikhs of course are represented across all ethnicities, but that highlights the importance of collecting data for a very relevant purpose.
This is more than a tick-box exercise. We are failing the Sikh community if they do not feel truly represented. The management committee of 112 gurdwaras, large and small, across the UK—with an official membership of more than 107,000 and an estimated congregation of 460,000—has asked the Government officially to recognise their religio-ethnic status. That is a lot of people in the minority community to ignore. It is time this Government officially acknowledged them.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) (V)
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I wish to discuss the matter of a tick box for Cornish national identity.
There is no doubt about the historic identity of the Cornish. We have been around for more than 12,000 years and, along with our Welsh cousins, we are the most ancient people on this island. We have our own language, which is about 5,000 years old but is enjoying a revival. We have our own flag, patron saint and even our own party. The idea of Cornish as a national identity in its own right is not some ageing romantic notion; it is a belief that is alive, real and passionately held today—and growing.
The Cornish received a huge boost when, in 2014, the Council of Europe framework convention for the protection of national minorities officially recognised our identity. That was duly welcomed and embraced by the UK Government, who stated at that time that they would give the Cornish the same recognition as the other Celtic people of these islands—the Welsh, the Scottish and the Irish. It was a moment of celebration: at last, for the first time in centuries, the Cornish had been recognised by the UK Government. A sense of optimism was unleashed, the struggle was over: we had been recognised and told that we would be given equality of recognition.
However, that optimism proved to be misplaced. Far from the struggle being over, it has never felt more important, because having been granted that recognition, what is now important is that it is acted upon—that it actually comes to mean something, not just in words but with something tangible.
An advisory committee from the Council of Europe visited the UK in March 2016 to assess how the UK Government and other public bodies were complying with the articles of the framework convention. In early 2017, it published an opinion that was very critical of the UK Government and their failure to act on the articles of the convention. In the committee’s report, one key proposal to address that shortcoming is to include in the 2021 census a Cornish tick box for national identity. It is hugely disappointing, and indeed frustrating, that we are here today and a tick box for the Cornish has not yet been included in the upcoming census. It would be simple and straightforward to grant, and enable the Government to say that they had actually delivered something to recognise the Cornish.
However, the frustration has not been having to convince Ministers; we have been consistently told that we need to convince the ONS. From the numerous meetings and discussions that I and others have had with the ONS, it is clear that it sees this as a localised and minority issue. It has failed to recognise that there are hundreds of thousands of Cornish men and women living across the UK who wish to be able to register their nationality as Cornish.
I cannot say often enough that this is not about the geographical place of Cornwall; it is about the national identity of Cornish people, who are found living in all corners of the UK. I am sad to say that it appears that the ONS simply does not get this. It certainly feels as though the ONS was determined not to grant the tick box for Cornish national identity, whatever case was made, because every objection that it has raised to a tick box has been answered. We have demonstrated time and again the unique case for the Cornish, and it is a unique case—no other indigenous national people in these islands are able to make such a claim. We are the only indigenous national identity that is not recognised in that way.
Sadly, because of the circumstances that Parliament is currently operating in, we find ourselves unable to push this matter to a vote in order to amend the order. If we had been able to vote, I feel sure that one would have been called.
In winding up, I have two points to put to the Minister. First, we have been told that, in place of a tick box, a write-in option will be available for people to identify as Cornish, and that a campaign will be run to draw awareness to this, focused in Cornwall. But the Cornish diaspora are spread far and wide across this nation. In fact, more Cornish people live outside Cornwall than in it. Will the Minister therefore ensure that any such campaign is national and not limited to Cornwall?
Finally, the Government continue to have an obligation to give the Cornish equal recognition as the other Celtic people, so if not a tick box, what will the Government do to ensure that the Cornish are recognised as we rightly should be?
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [V]
We live in a multicultural society that is full of self-expression, and a census provides a snapshot of that diversity. The questions in a census, therefore, are themselves important; if we do not ask the right ones, the picture of our country is distorted. Making sure that all people count is important.
On census night 1911, Emily Wilding Davison hid illegally in a broom cupboard in the Palace of Westminster, to ensure that a woman would be recorded as being in the House of Commons that night. Clearly, the contents of a census take on their own intrinsic value, which is another reason to ensure that we take care how the questions are worded and what responses they enable people to give. That is one of the reasons why the addition of questions about sexuality and gender identity are so important: it demonstrates that we regard sexual and gender identity as a core part of people’s lives. For LGBTQ people, who often suffer so much discrimination, recognition in itself can mean a great deal.
Such care must also carry over to how members of the Government express themselves. I know that many Members were very concerned by the excluding comments of the Minister for Women and Equalities when she appeared before the Women and Equalities Committee. How politicians, as representatives of their constituents, use their language matters to the people they represent.
We should take care in how we word our questions. If different groups and people are not carefully consulted, we risk generating questions that people do not want to answer. For some communities, their religion is also how they express their ethnicity, and in order to be truly inclusive we must work to ensure that the census reflects that. If a large number of individuals from a particular community, such as the Sikh community, feel that filling in a free-text box is the only way to express their identity, then we have failed to be truly inclusive.
These questions of identity also matter practically. The census directly informs how Government go about delivering public services. One of the great benefits of the new questions on sexuality, gender identity and veterans is that, over the next decade, hopefully, we can ensure that those groups of people who have historically lacked support and provision can get the services they need. Having previously worked in military resettlement, I am pleased that the Government are recognising that community’s contribution. The census will help to ensure that the public services we provide meet the duties under the Equality Act 2010, one of which is to eliminate discrimination. I wholeheartedly support that.
However, it seems strange to me that, while public service delivery is determined by the number of people in the census, for constituency boundaries we seem interested only in the number of people on the electoral roll. MPs provide a public service too—I think that is very obvious at this time. We are often the people our constituents turn to when all other public services have failed. It is electors who determine boundaries, but it should be the number of people who require services.
It is not just about the questions on the census; it is also about who answers them. Looking forward to the next steps in the process, it will be the census regulations that will deal with the operational practicalities. Although 2021 will be the first time that the vast majority of responses will be made online, the census has to capture everyone in our society. We must ensure that the most vulnerable in particular are represented. I would welcome representations from the Minister on how the census will reach deprived and disadvantages communities and individuals, such as the homeless and rough sleepers.
It is good that the Office for National Statistics is considering British Sign Language support, alongside Braille, large-print and easy-read versions of the census. I would like to see such measures in the UK Government’s daily covid briefings too.
According to the White Paper on the census regulations, at least 17,000 census field officers are being recruited to support those who cannot complete the census online. Of course, with the census taking place in March 2021, the covid-19 outbreak might continue to pose a particular challenge. It is certainly not unforeseeable that we will still be in this state of social distancing by next March. Can the Government confirm what steps they and the ONS are taking now to ensure that, if social distancing is still in place, the census can still reach people who are not able to take part in it online?
This census represents a huge commitment of resources. We must take every opportunity to ensure that the results returned are truly reflective of all corners of British society.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) [V]
I represent a large Sikh population in Erith and Thamesmead, and I am speaking in this debate today to represent their views on the inclusion of the Sikh ethnic tick box response in the census 2021. I agree with the comments of the shadow Minister for young people and voter engagement, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), along with my parliamentary colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin). I also take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) and for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who have spent a significant number of years lobbying for the change, along with the Sikh community.
Approximately 6,000 people attend the Guru Nanak Darbar Sikh temple in Erith and Belvedere, which is in my constituency of Erith and Thamesmead. The committee of that temple is in full support of the inclusion of a Sikh ethnic tick box and feels that it is long overdue.
The ethnic group question on the census was introduced in 1991 to help public bodies to assess equal opportunities and develop anti-discrimination policies. The data is used by 40,000 public bodies to address their legal responsibilities under equalities legislation and to make decisions about the allocation of resources and the provision of public services. We can therefore conclude that, if Sikhs do not have an ethnic tick box option, their needs will not be properly monitored and assessed by public bodies. Just because discrimination is not properly monitored does not mean that it does not exist.
According to the UK Sikh survey 2016, almost one in five Sikhs have encountered discrimination in a public place. Sikhs have also reported discrimination in schools, in public and in the workplace and have failed to have their ethnicity properly recorded by the authorities. We can see the effects of the exclusion of a Sikh ethnic tick box currently in that there is no systematic collection of data on the number of Sikhs who have tested positive for, or tragically died from covid-19. That point has been echoed by a number of my colleagues.
There is a clear demand for the Sikh ethnic tick box option to be included in the census, not only from the Sikh community in my constituency, who have made it clear that they are in favour of it, but across the country. In the census 2011, more than 83,000 Sikhs, or 20%, rejected the eight existing ethnic tick boxes and chose instead to tick “other” and write “Sikh”.
The all-party parliamentary group for British Sikhs carried out an independent survey of gurdwaras to assess public acceptability. All 112 gurdwaras surveyed were in favour of the option of a Sikh ethnic tick box. In 2018, it was concluded that a Sikh ethnic tick box would not be acceptable to a proportion of the Sikh population. That was based on 53 participants in six Sikh focus groups assembled in 2018. In the light of the most recent survey results, I join the Sikh Federation UK in asking whether Ministers appreciate that the management committees of 112 gurdwaras large and small across the UK—with an official membership of more than 107,000 and an estimated congregation of more than 460,000—carry much more weight than 53 individual Sikhs in focus groups.
Sikhs have been legally recognised as an ethnic group for nearly 40 years, since the House of Lords ruling in 1983. As well as the need for the correct allocation of resources and support for Sikhs from public bodies, it is right that after 40 years Sikhs should be allowed the opportunity to identify their ethnicity. For those reasons, I support my Erith and Thamesmead constituents in their calls for there to be a Sikh ethnic tick box in the census 2021.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare). Let me start by saying that I welcome the order. I am sure that there is almost universal support for a census. Although I support it, I am interested to know more about the decisions the Government have made in arriving at it.
The purpose of the order is simply to provide direction for next year’s census on the population of England and Wales. It includes the date of the census, the area to be covered, what is required in the return, who is included and the particulars that may be requested and from whom. I remember my first census back when I was eight years old, and just how excited I got. I do not understand quite why, but I just appreciated the scale of this enormous exercise.
Given the fact that we have one coming up next year, we must recognise the importance of this data collection in giving some snapshot, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) said, of the nature of our society and the people that we are. For a nation and for the purposes of good governance, I have always believed this data to be of huge importance and believed in the value of the continuity of measurement decade after decade.
What is also important, beyond the standard information, is the ability to use the census to update it and ensure its relevance in relation to social and economic change. Ten years is a long time to wait for these changes, and I suggest that a few that are being proposed are long overdue, given that we are now in the third decade of the 21st century. Let me come to identity in a moment, but may I just say that it is good to see the introduction of a new question capturing past service in the UK armed forces, which has been added? It should go some way in recognising the lives of our fabulous forces personnel.
On identities, I want to support the addition of two new voluntary questions on sexual orientation and gender identity. At last, LGBTQ people will be acknowledged, and that is most welcome. However, I also see there will be the continuation, for those not included in the existing tick boxes, to allow that to be expressed through the write-in option on both paper and online questionnaires. Interestingly, for the first time, an additional response option of Roma will be included under the ethnic group question, which is also welcome. In addition, the national identity question allows respondents to record multiple identities across the tick boxes and write-in box. But other than those changes, the proposed questions appear to be much as in the previous census 10 years ago.
Perhaps surprisingly, there has been no inclusion of a Sikh tick box, despite the House of Lords ruling in the Mandla v. Dowell Lee case of 1983 that Sikhs are an ethnic group, not simply a religion. The Sikh community is important to the UK in every sense, and I commend the speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) and for Erith and Thamesmead. In my constituency of Warwick and Leamington, the community accounts for a significant and welcome share of our population and our community.
The Minister will be aware that there has been a long-running campaign by the Sikh Federation and, indeed, the whole British Sikh community for this change to be introduced. The concerns among the community, as has been widely shared this afternoon, are that, if Sikhs do not have a Sikh ethnic tick box response option, they will continue not to be properly monitored by public bodies and face possible discrimination in schools and the health sector, where there are known disparities, as well as in housing and across the public sector more generally. As has been evidenced in the current covid-19 crisis, there is no systematic collection of data on the number of Sikhs tested as positive or the number that, tragically, have died, despite the significant number who are actually working on our frontline.
I appreciate that this is a statutory instrument and is unamendable as such, so there will not be any opportunities to change the proposals. I simply want to ask the Minister why the decision was reached to exclude the Sikh identity as a tick box and what steps the Government will take to ensure the Sikh community is properly accounted for in data collection, ensuring the fair allocation of resources and provision of public services.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
May I first declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief? I have been asked to raise an issue by a group of people within a religious minority—the Sikhs—as other Members have done, including the hon. Members for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) and for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare). I also want to thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), who I call my friend, for all that she has done for the Sikhs over the years.
Sikhs have been legally recognised as an ethnic group for nearly 40 years, since the Mandla v. Dowell-Lee House of Lords ruling of 1983. The ONS has stated that the ethnic group question was introduced in 1991 to help public bodies to assess equal opportunities and to develop anti-discrimination policies—all good stuff. Census ethnic group categories are used by 40,000 public bodies to assess legal responsibilities under equalities legislation, so the group data—not the religious data—is used by public bodies to make decisions on the allocation of resources and provision of public services.
The Prime Minister’s last race disparity audit indicated that there were 176 datasets spanning sectors from housing and education, to employment, health and the criminal justice system—but no data on Sikhs. What does this actually mean? Well, if Sikhs do not have a Sikh ethnic tick-box response option, they will continue not to be properly monitored by public bodies, and to face potential discrimination in relation to schools, the health sector, where there are known disparities, housing and across the public sector.
The covid-19 crisis has shown that there is no systematic collection of data on the number of Sikhs tested as positive or the numbers who have tragically died. That means something to this group of people, it means something to me, and it should mean something to everyone in the House. In the 2011 census, more than 80,000 Sikhs—20%—rejected the 18 existing ethnic tick boxes and chose instead to tick “Other” and write “Sikh”. I believe that this provided the ONS with the strongest indication possible that Sikhs who completed the census form in 2011 did not find the ethnic tick boxes offered acceptable and wanted an additional Sikh ethnic tick box. It is clear that there must be change and I am asking for that change.
I have four questions for the Minister. Why was the May 2018 online quantitative survey—which had 1,412 responses and showed 93% support, from those who understood the question, for the inclusion of a Sikh ethnic tick box—not published and referred to the census White Paper of December 2018? Why was there no reference in the census White Paper and the associated equality impact assessment to research and modelling by the ONS that showed that more than 53,000 Sikhs—or 12%—were missed in the 2011 census? In the interests of data collection, honesty and evidence, this gap has to be addressed.
Do Ministers appreciate that the management committees of 112 large and small gurdwaras across the UK, with an official membership of over 107,000 and an estimated congregation—or a sangat—of over 460,000 should be considered, as well as 53 individual Sikhs in focus groups? Can the Minister explain why the ONS has requested and received the individual returns from the all-party parliamentary group for British Sikhs in August 2018, and yet, it would appear, has made no attempt to conduct any independent validation; and why the deputy national statistician appears to have kept no notes or minutes of meetings that he attended at gurdwaras to consult Sikhs?
I look to the Minister for an adequate, suitable and helpful response. I understand that some of my questions may not be answerable today, but I would appreciate a response. More than that, I would appreciate a change to include Sikhs in the census in their own right in order to ensure that they have protection against discrimination and the recognition that they rightly deserve. Better late than never.
Chloe Smith
You will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that as I have so many answers to give I must ensure that I have all my papers in front of me. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate for what was a thoughtful and helpful consideration of all the issues that pertain to the running of an exercise of this scale. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), who said that, as a younger version of himself, he marvelled at the scale of the census exercise. We can all appreciate that.
Let me turn to some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who spoke for the Labour party. She asked some questions about the Gender Recognition Act; I can confirm that the consultation response from the Government will be forthcoming before the summer recess. She also asked whether specialist LGBT support would flow from the census results; I assure her that the Government will look carefully at that. Furthermore, she asked whether there might be a support plan for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities following the data that we hope to collect from the census. I refer her to the plans announced last year by the noble Lord Bourne, who was then the Minister responsible in the Lords—which is to say that yes, we do intend to look at where greater support can be given.
Let me turn to the points that were raised about Sikh ethnicity—I shall then go on to discuss Cornish national identity and other points that I hope to be able to tick off for Members. On the point about Sikh ethnic identity, I reassure Members that in no way is either the ONS or the Government ignoring a community, tolerating discrimination or—to address some of the remarks made today—ignoring the possibility of there being a greater impact of covid-19 on black, Asian and minority ethnic groups. It would be very grave if the Government or the ONS were doing any of those things, and we are not doing them.
I recognise the passion with which people have spoken on this issue, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), who is chair of the all-party group on British Sikhs, and other members of that all-party group who have campaigned on this matter for a long time. It is never a reflection of the ONS’s or the Government’s recognition of or respect for any ethnicity, religion or national identity if it does not have a tick-box response option on the census. That in itself answers a number of the points raised by Members today: not to have a tick box is no marker of discrimination or the ignoring of any particular community.
The content of the draft census order is informed by an extensive programme of research and consultation with a wide range of stakeholders carried out by the ONS, and it is necessary to prioritise what is included in the questionnaire. I remind the House of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess): 55 new tick boxes were requested for the ethnic group question alone—that gives a sense of the context—and each request has to be reviewed against a detailed set of prioritisation measures before the final recommendation is made.
As a result of that rigorous process, the only additional response option that has been included in the ethnic group question is Roma. It has to be found that there is a strong need for data and that no suitable alternative data or alternative sources are available to meet the need. The process is detailed by the ONS; I am giving some selected points from it. In the Roma case, a new tick box was found to be acceptable for those answering the census question.
Let me come back to the Sikh community. There will continue to be a specific Sikh response option in the census question on religion. Despite it being a voluntary question, the response rate on the religion question is very high, at more than 92%, and we are confident, through the ONS, that religion data from the census will provide high-quality data for public bodies to inform service provision and equalities monitoring.
The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) said that we should either do one thing or another—that we should make things better or we should have a tick box. I assure him that we are making things better. The ONS recognises that data on religion is not routinely collected and that that is a source of concern for communities, so the ONS will use the new possibilities provided by the Digital Economy Act 2017 to address precisely that point. The ONS began by producing an analytical report on religion in February this year, and there is more work to come. I look forward to seeing it, as I know other Members will, too.
I should say, for members of the Sikh community, that people will continue to be able to record their ethnic group in the census however they wish, by recording it in the write-in boxes provided. An online functionality will assist people in doing that. With those reassurances, I hope it is clear that the ONS and the Government recognise the need for data on different communities; will provide a wide range of statistical outputs to meet their needs; will work with local authorities and public bodies to ensure the availability of that data; and will, given the innovations in this census, provide some of the best analysis that there may ever have been, to help them to better serve the different communities in their areas. Let me also offer reassurance at this stage that Public Health England has been asked to undertake a more detailed analysis into differences between ethnic groups in respect of covid-19.
Let me go on to the somewhat related challenges that have been put forward around Cornish national identity. Here I want to offer a further recognition, which is that the Government understand the points that have been made by Cornish Members today about the distinct culture and heritage of Cornwall and how important this is to the people of Cornwall, who are understandably very proud of their history. May I say—I hope I do not mangle the pronunciation—meur ras to those who have made those points here today? However, the ONS has found that the need for data on Cornish populations is localised and not strong enough, in the context of the many requests for new census questions, to justify the inclusion of Cornish national identity in the nationwide census.
The ONS is absolutely committed to working with Cornish MPs, Cornwall Council and others to meet its data needs through data gathered through the write-in option and will be promoting this in both the national and local census campaigns. I particularly want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) that that will go beyond the boundaries of Cornwall and will be available anywhere across the country. The ONS will be marketing this work both nationally and locally, and will promote beyond Cornwall the ability to self-identify as Cornish, acknowledging the point that has been made about the Cornish diaspora. I hope that is helpful to hon. Members here today who have raised points about Cornwall.
Let me turn to the points that have been made—for example, by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West—about digital exclusion. Here I also offer some points about homelessness and the provisions for how the census will be completed. The ONS will be working with various organisations to provide support to those who are offline for various reasons or finding it difficult to complete the census online. There will be additional help, including language support and paper forms. There is also an option of completion by telephone, which may be helpful in relation to my hon. Friend’s point about those who are blind and partially sighted. The ONS will also employ community advisers with various relevant language skills, which I hope goes to his point about those with English as a second language. He also asked about communal establishments. They will be enumerated differently to households, as they were 10 years ago, so there will be a particular communal establishment questionnaire. He also asked what the penalties would be for failure to comply. Those penalties derive from the Census Act 1920, and failure to complete and return the questionnaire can attract a fine of up to £1,000.
I want to mention homelessness, which is an important topic here. It is important that rough sleepers and homeless people are included in the 2021 census. I know that we all appreciate the fact that rough sleepers, in particular, are a small, visible and very disadvantaged subgroup within the wider homeless population, so there are provisions to ensure that the ONS reaches homeless individuals by, for example, working with day centres and night shelters. It is finalising that approach, and I am confident that it will make more details available to the House, should that be wanted. Let me tick off the question of a risk of a cyber-attack, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West asked about. I can give him an assurance that the ONS has that plan in place, including having used the services of the National Cyber Security Centre to carry out a security review.
Let me now turn to some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams). He asked a specific question on whether the final questionnaire would include the terms “Asian Welsh” and “black Welsh” in the high-level descriptions. I can confirm to him that that is occurring, following a point that was raised by the Welsh Government. We welcome the improvement of the census by that interaction, and I thank my colleagues in the Welsh Government for that.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about how those who speak Welsh outside Wales will be accommodated in this census.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
Hear, hear!
Chloe Smith
I hear support for that from another Welsh colleague in the House. There are proposals for ensuring that those whose first language is Welsh, and those who have both English and Welsh as first languages, will be able to record that in the “main language” question, but perhaps it would make most sense for me to write to the hon. Gentleman to be clear about how else that issue will be accommodated throughout the questionnaire.
I think I am coming to the end of the questions that hon. Members raised with me, so I will now make a few general points before I commend this order to the House. As I said in my opening remarks, I hope that hon. Members will find it easy and rewarding to work with the Office for National Statistics in their communities and constituencies, and help constituents to respond to the census. I thank in advance right hon. and hon. Members who I am sure will do that, as well as all those who have contributed to this debate. Given the quality of debate that we have had, I hope we have supported a high-quality census, which in turn will provide vital information for decision making in our society. The ONS has worked hard over a number of years to bring forward proposals that will work for the population of this country and give us the good quality data we need, and I hope I have provided those reassurances to the House today on its behalf. I have further tried to provide reassurances to the House about other Government actions regarding those topics that have been mentioned today.
It is essential that everybody is counted in the census next year, as that will provide policy makers and decision makers with the information they require to help target resources where they are most needed, as efficiently and effectively as possible. I am confident that this first predominantly online census will deliver that, and over time I look forward to bringing forward the remaining regulations. I commend this order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That items 2 (resident particulars), 5, 6 (visitor particulars), 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 (demographic particulars), 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 36(d) (education and employment particulars), 41, 42, 43 (accommodation particulars), 45, 46 (additional particulars for individual returns) in Schedule 2, and items 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Schedule 3 to the draft Census (England and Wales) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 2 March, be approved.
Deputy Speaker’s Statement
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am now able to announce the results of the ballots that have been held today for the election of new Chairs of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and the Committee on Standards.
In the ballot for Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, 544 votes were cast. The counting went to two rounds, and Darren Jones was elected Chair with 296 votes in the second round.
In the ballot for Chair of the Committee on Standards, 540 votes were cast, and Chris Bryant was elected Chair with 322 votes.
A breakdown of the results will made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published online. Both Chairs will take up their posts immediately. I send hearty congratulations to them both.
Adjournment
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, Virtual Proceedings of the House of Lords will now begin. I remind Members that these proceedings are subject to parliamentary privilege and that what we say is available to the public both in Hansard and to those listening and watching. Members’ microphones will initially be set to mute, and the broadcasting team will unmute their microphones shortly before we reach their place in the speakers’ list. When Members have finished speaking, their microphones will again be set to mute.
Virtual Proceedings on Oral Questions will now start. I will call each Oral Question in the normal way, and supplementary questions will be asked in the order shown on the speakers’ list. Please ensure that questions and answers are short, because that helps everybody on the list. Each speaker’s microphone will be unmuted prior to their supplementary question and returned to mute once their supplementary question has finished.
National Asylum Support Service
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that those accommodated by the National Asylum Support Service are able to follow social distancing guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, we have worked closely with Public Health England to ensure that asylum accommodation providers follow relevant guidance and are supporting asylum seekers to social distance within the accommodation estate. All supported asylum seekers receive translated guidance and increased contact management. In hostel-based accommodation, measures taken include segregation of symptomatic service users, sequencing of mealtimes, two-metre marking to ensure social distancing and increased cleaning and hygiene regimes.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
I thank the Minister for that response, but what she has said is just not consistent in any way with the experience of charities working with these people on a daily basis. Refugee Action, Asylum Matters and the Scottish Refugee Council have described the situation in detention centres as life threatening. People are being forced to share kitchens, bathrooms, bedrooms and sometimes even beds with complete strangers. This goes against everything the Government are advising. Will the Minister agree to meet me and some of these charities so that she can see for herself exactly what the situation is on the ground?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
We are working with accommodation providers and NGOs—and in the detention estate, as the noble Baroness outlines—to ensure that they are providing services to vulnerable asylum seekers. Our providers have identified vulnerable service users and are providing them with additional support, including supplying food parcels where needed. We have also procured 4,000 single hotel rooms to assist with initial asylum seekers at this time.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Speaker for calling me and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for asking this Question. Is it not essential that all those dealing with asylum seekers constantly remember that these people—women, children and men—have been through terrible experiences, too often involving torture, which in many instances have left them scarred? Is it not therefore essential that, in all that we do, we take as warm and supportive an attitude as possible and that we avoid a minimalist, regimented regime? Should the good Samaritan not constantly be our example?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Some of these people will have had the most terrible experiences. Nobody whose asylum application is complete will be asked to leave the country. As I said, we are procuring 4,000 hotel rooms. People in both our asylum estate and our detention estate are treated as any other member of the public would be, whether they are vulnerable, as the noble Lord outlined, or not.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, it is not easy to provide a safe distancing policy in our overcrowded penal institutions. Once the state detains inmates, it assumes full responsibility for their safety and welfare. What effort has been made to ensure that people are released from detention centres to places of safety in the community? Will the Minister ensure that there is a moratorium on deportation until it is safe to deport people?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, at this point in time nobody whose case has been concluded and who is due to leave will be asked to leave. That will be the position up to June and possibly beyond. The noble Lord is absolutely right: the asylum estate has as many obligations in terms of social distancing as any other place in the UK. I do not think that deportations are happening at the moment either.
Baroness Pidding (Con)
My Lords, my question refers to the wider issue of migrants arriving in the UK. Last month, four boats carrying up to 57 migrants were intercepted by HM Coastguard and the Border Force in the English Channel. Can my noble friend reassure us that our coastguard and Border Force officers are adequately provided with PPE when dealing with such eventualities, and that any such migrants will be given health checks and monitored for signs of Covid-19?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend is absolutely right that migrants arriving in the UK should be assessed. Certainly, if they are being put into accommodation, we want to ensure that they are not Covid-positive. If anyone moved into initial accommodation —possibly a hostel-type arrangement—is symptomatic, they are moved into hotel-type accommodation so that they can segregate and isolate. I join calls every day with our Border Force colleagues, and I understand that their PPE requirements are adequate.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, what advice and information on Covid-19 is available in languages other than English, in what format and in which languages? How is it made accessible to people needing help from the National Asylum Support Service, including through the use of registered public service interpreters?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, all asylum seekers currently accommodated in asylum support properties can receive advice on asylum support and associated Covid-19 guidance and signposting through our advice, issue reporting and eligibility provider, Migrant Help. They can contact Migrant Help 24 hours a day on a freephone number if they need assistance or guidance. The AIRE service provides all the current process, policy and health guidelines, as well as immediate access to service providers for escalation. The translated public health guidance is available in 12 languages, with instructions to service users.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the daily asylum support rate of £5.39 is insufficient to meet health and hygiene needs. Will the Minister therefore undertake to press for an emergency uplift in line with UC as a matter of urgency?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness might be pleased to know that we are currently reviewing the level of allowance, taking Covid-19 factors into consideration. However, I cannot promise uplifts to UC levels.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Doocey outlined the shocking plight of refugees, who are forced to make the impossible choice between enduring dangerously unsanitary conditions here or the dangers of returning home to the source of their persecution. I was very pleased to hear the Minister talk about the 4,000 hotel rooms that have been made available; we know that hotel chains have been very generous in their offer of rooms. How many refugees are currently staying in hotel accommodation? How many are left living in other types of accommodation, and what are the plans to ensure that they have safe, sanitary conditions in which to sit out the pandemic?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
There are basically three types of accommodation: the initial, hostel-type accommodation facilities for people arriving here; hotel accommodation facilities, as the noble Baroness mentioned and as I pointed out earlier; and dispersed accommodation, which is where the significant majority of our service users reside. The latter consists of houses or homes of multiple occupancy, which obviously accommodate smaller numbers. I cannot give her the figures on hotel accommodation, but I can certainly write to or email her with these.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Refugee Council has persistently campaigned for better access to healthcare for asylum seekers, noting that a lack of confidence in communicating in English and confusion over the support available act as huge obstacles. Will the Minister make urgent representations to the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that all asylum seekers have access to healthcare, and specifically testing, during the Covid-19 pandemic? Secondly, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, asked the Minister for a meeting. Did the Minister agree to that?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I did not confirm that, but I am very happy to have a virtual meeting with the noble Baroness. On healthcare, as I said earlier, all asylum accommodation providers continue to provide translated public health guidance, which is available in 12 languages, and instructions to service users. Nobody, whether an asylum seeker or not, need worry that healthcare will not be available to them.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Africa: Support
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Oates
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they are providing to African countries in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, DfID is rapidly adapting its bilateral programmes across Africa to help counter the health, humanitarian and economic impacts of Covid-19 in support of the most vulnerable and poorest people. We have provided health experts to give direct support to African countries, and we have made significant contributions to the multilateral response. UK aid is also supporting a team at the WHO’s office in Brazzaville, to co-ordinate the regional response.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I commend the Minister and her department for the rapid deployment of financial support to the continent. As she will be aware, the gravest health risks facing African people may well arise from the economic impacts, rather than the disease impacts, of Covid, leading to a reduction in resources available for health services, spiralling hunger and an increase in other fatal diseases such as measles, polio and malaria. Can the Minister therefore tell the House what planning DfID is undertaking to ensure a co-ordinated and long-term approach to supporting and reviving African economies as they emerge from the immediate crisis?
Baroness Sugg
I agree with the noble Lord that the gravest health risks may come from the economic impacts. The UK is at the forefront of efforts to protect African economies. We are encouraging international financial institutions, UN agencies and others to co-ordinate to make funds available as quickly as possible. We have committed up to £150 million to the International Monetary Fund to help vulnerable countries meet debt repayments. In the longer term, we are providing technical assistance and capacity building to help support the African Union’s African continental free trade area, which offers the opportunity to kick-start regional trade and support the economic bounce back.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, if Covid-19 becomes endemic in African countries, it will remain a threat to the world for the foreseeable future? Would she consider convening a conference of Commonwealth African countries—after all, Nigeria, the largest country on the continent, is a Commonwealth country—to see whether the initiative can be taken on a Commonwealth basis?
Baroness Sugg
I thank my noble friend for that question. I absolutely agree that we need to tackle this pandemic globally. We are not going to resolve it within our own borders unless we help the rest of the world to tackle it too. I also agree on the importance of our Commonwealth relationships. Sadly, the CHOGM conference has been postponed, but I know that my noble friend Lord Ahmad, the Minister for the Commonwealth, is in regular contact with Commonwealth leaders so we can help each other to tackle the pandemic.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a farmer as set out in the register. Could the Minister confirm that, in providing support to African and other eligible countries, careful consideration is given by DfID to purchasing suitable surplus agricultural products from British farmers as a result of the steep decline in demand from the food service sector, and that this is distributed as part of the aid budget to those countries experiencing desperate food shortages? A broadly similar policy has just been announced by the Canadian Government.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we remain deeply concerned about the food security situation in Africa. In east Africa alone, nearly 25 million people are at crisis levels of food insecurity. We are supporting farmers in Africa in a number of ways through our global agriculture and food security programme and our adaptation for smallholder agriculture programme. On the export of food from the UK to Africa, I will have to take that back to the department and follow it up in writing to the noble Lord.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, the G7 is due to meet in the United States in June—or perhaps virtually. What action will the UK take to ensure that that summit addresses the economic fragility of sub-Saharan Africa, the supply chains and the international trade that has been disrupted as a result of the Covid-19 international lockdown, and not just the economic needs of the developed world?
Baroness Sugg
I assure the noble Lord that we will absolutely take into account the economic and supply chain impacts on the developing world. We have pre-meetings ahead of the G7 where that discussion is already happening, and I am sure it will be on the agenda for the summit.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, aid to developing countries is dwarfed by massive debt repayments to rich countries. Other than the G20’s decision to temporarily suspend debt payments, what further measures are being considered to alleviate the crippling debt so that health systems can be strengthened?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to the suspension of debt repayments, which we argued for with the G20 and the Paris Club. I have already mentioned the £150 million going to the International Monetary Fund for catastrophe containment. We are also working closely with the private sector to see what we can do there and providing advice to developing countries on how best to respond to the economic impact of Covid-19.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Secretary-General of the UN’s High-level Advisory Board on Mediation. What specific steps are the Government taking to support the very successful call for a global ceasefire as it applies to sub-Saharan Africa, particularly among those countries that already have some kind of ceasefire in place, to support the mediation and peace process? I am of course referring to the Secretary-General’s call.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we fully support the Secretary-General’s call for a ceasefire. We are working in countries, where it is relevant, to ensure that we are doing what we can. We do not need any further issues affecting people who are already impacted so heavily by Covid-19.
Lord Pickles (Con)
The Foreign Secretary yesterday warned about the criminal gangs and other supranational organisations seeking to disrupt a cure for Covid-19. We have seen a rise in attacks on Chinese people in the United Kingdom and suggestions that the virus has been spread by Jewish people or by Muslims. What will my noble friend do in terms of offering advice to African countries to counter this kind of fake news, which could turn various communities against one another and be just as damaging as the disease itself?
Baroness Sugg
My noble friend will be aware of the programme that we have in this country to tackle fake news, but we have also announced support to tackle false claims and conspiracy theories in Africa, which may spread rapidly on social media and may even promote dangerous behaviour. Our support will be going to the Humanitarian to Humanitarian Network, which addresses the spread of misinformation during epidemics and will help to tackle specific mistruths in Africa.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the devastating effect of the combination of Covid-19 and famine caused by locusts sweeping across east Africa? As PPE is needed to fight coronavirus and locusts—both are growing simultaneously—supply chains are being badly affected in the worst affected countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and South Sudan. Can the Minister give some assurance that this lethal combination of locusts and coronavirus is being addressed as a priority?
Baroness Sugg
I can assure that the noble Baroness that it is. We are deeply concerned about the potential second wave of locusts coming into east Africa. We are working with other donors to support UN agencies, the Red Cross and NGOs to respond to coronavirus, and with the FAO on locusts. That includes helping the world’s poorest countries to access critical medical supplies, including PPE.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome Monday’s pledge by the UK of £250 million at the virtual EU summit to boost public research funding for a new Covid vaccine. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that any vaccine developed using UK public money will be accessible by and affordable for all?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, in fact, the UK co-hosted that summit along with the EU and we are absolutely committed to the WHO Access to Covid-19 Tools Accelerator to make sure that new vaccines are accessible by everyone.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as listed in the register. There are Commonwealth countries in Africa that have no DfID representation within them. What are the Government doing to ensure that on-the-ground organisation is arranged for the aid that the UK is providing? Would the Minister consider using the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, who have relationships in some of these countries, to assist?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, as I said, the Commonwealth has an essential role to play in the global response to Covid-19. We obviously have a presence in the vast majority of countries that need our presence and, where we do not, we work closely with international agencies to make sure that they are delivering the help needed on the ground. However, I will certainly take the noble Lord’s suggestion of working with other Governments back to the department.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Covid-19: Contact-tracing App
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to (1) protect the privacy of users, and (2) provide oversight, of the National Health Service’s COVID-19 contact-tracing application and, in particular, whether the application will meet Apple’s privacy standard for Bluetooth.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, we have put privacy at the heart of the app and the way it works. It is designed so that you do not have to give up your personal details to use it. We have worked in partnership with both the National Cyber Security Centre and the Information Commissioner’s Office throughout. We continue to hold discussions with Apple and Google. The app uses only software development tools and mechanisms that are supported by Apple and Google.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
To be effective, achieve widespread adoption and ensure our safety, the new app needs to gain public trust. So, why have the Government developed a go-it-alone, centralised app which is not optimally privacy-preserving, not interoperable with the apps of other countries—not even Scotland, it seems —not fully compatible with the Apple and Google Bluetooth protocol, and has no mandatory oversight, time limit on its use or public data impact assessment?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, it is not a go-it-alone app; others are following our lead on this. It is interoperable, and we are working with other countries to make sure it is. Testing with the public has turned out to be extremely positive and we look forward to publishing the audit shortly.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the importance of track, trace and isolate is beyond doubt, but what assurances can the Minister give to your Lordships’ House that this data, as part of data-sharing with the NHS, will be anonymised and protected to prevent information being used by others?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, the anonymised data-sharing is protected by the security protocols that have been agreed as part of the app’s governance. That governance is overseen by the ethics board, chaired by Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery from University College London, who previously headed the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what lessons Her Majesty’s Government have learned from South Korea and Taiwan, for example, which have been far more successful than the UK in testing, tracking and tracing, and hence reducing death rates? South Korea, with a population of 52 million, has had 252 deaths and Taiwan, with a population of 24 million, has had six deaths. Can the Minister explain to the House why the UK’s record looks comparatively so poor?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, I am in touch with both the South Korean and Taiwanese Governments, and we are greatly inspired by the throughly professional way in which they have gone about epidemic management. I commend both those countries and their efforts. However, the epidemic arrived in Britain in an incredibly fulsome way. The Chief Medical Officer has been very clear that if that had happened in either of those countries, their responses would have been similar to that of Britain. I defend the Government’s response to the epidemic.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, one of the core principles of data protection is to gather the minimum amount of data. I understand that one reason given by the NCSC for asking for partial postcodes on registration for the app is to assist with regional healthcare planning and to monitor potential Covid flare-ups. Can the Minister explain why data from Covid tests and NHS 111, for example, would not be sufficient to keep the transmission rate down in a post-lockdown test, track and trace strategy?
Lord Bethell
My noble friend Lady Blackwood is entirely right. The testing and the surveillance done by testing give us powerful insight into the demographic reach of the virus and information on a very broad basis on the regional reach, but we are looking for a much more granular level of detail from the very powerful, multimillion level of detail that the app can provide. The value of those surveillance details has led us to design the app in the way we have.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Matt Hancock has said that the app is to flag up our proximity to someone else using the app, not to track our movements. So why do the terms and conditions of the app request access to track our precise location based on GPS or network-based systems?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, the app works by using the Bluetooth tags which are shared once you have declared symptoms or you have had a positive test. It does not rely on GPS tracking. If the terms and conditions are broader, that is because we want to try to provide the most thorough set of conditions that encompass all the data provided by the user’s telephone. However, I can reassure the House that it is Bluetooth tagging that is used by the app and the surveillance system.
Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, what work is going on to make sure that the app that NHSX is developing is interoperable with other countries’ apps? Clearly we all want to get back to a situation where people can move freely from one country to another for business or leisure, so interoperation is important. I will be grateful if my noble friend can update us.
Lord Bethell
My noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy is entirely right. We all wish to move as quickly as possible back to normal, but I am afraid that travel will be one of the aspects of our former lives that will be slowest to return. That said, we are working extremely hard with other countries to make sure that interoperability can be baked into our arrangements. Of course, the app has not yet been launched and few other countries are ahead of us. We sat with the Irish Government on 24 April in order to work out interoperability protocols since that border is the most important and proximate to us.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
The Office for National Statistics tells us that the highest number of deaths is among the poorest communities at 55 in 100,000 versus 25 in 100,000 in other communities, yet they are also the most digitally excluded people. It is tragic that these inequalities mean that the contact-tracing app will not help those who most need it. What is the Government’s plan to address this enormous challenge?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is entirely right to point to the importance of ensuring that the vulnerable are included. Of course, the app is not the only thing we are depending on. Manual track and trace in the conventional way of using a telephone and speaking to those who test positive will still be a core part of our track-and-trace arrangements. Efforts will be made to reach those who are vulnerable or digitally isolated to ensure that they have details of the provisions for these track-and-trace arrangements.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to follow up on the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, because she has put her finger exactly on how this may not work because either our most vulnerable and poorest communities will not have the technology or there will be problems with language. I would like some more detail from the Minister about exactly how the Government intend to roll this out. Given that it took such a long time to roll out the NHS volunteers system, I feel that we might find ourselves with our most vulnerable and poorest communities disadvantaged.
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is entirely right to be concerned about the vulnerable and our approach. I completely share those concerns. It is a massive challenge, but that does not stop us embracing the advantages of technology where millions of transactions can be done in a day which could never be done by more manual processes. An enormous amount will be invested in trying to reach out to those who are isolated, vulnerable or digitally excluded to ensure that they have details of our track-and-trace arrangements. Hiring an enormous army of track-and-trace experts has already begun, and details can be seen on my Twitter feed of how volunteers who have the right qualifications can join those efforts.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, if we are moving to a centralised app, what assurances do we have about how long the data will be stored? I see references to use for research purposes in various documents. Will there be careful safeguards about the deletion of the data after a certain period?
Lord Bethell
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that sunset arrangements will form part of the conditions of the app and that they will be published shortly.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Israel: West Bank
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the announcement by the government of Israel of its intention to commence discussions from 1 July on applying Israeli sovereignty to Jewish settlements and other territory in the occupied West Bank.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we are deeply concerned by reports that the new Israeli Government coalition have reached an agreement which may pave the way for annexation of parts of the West Bank. The United Kingdom’s position is clear: any unilateral moves towards annexation of parts of the West Bank by Israel would be damaging to efforts to restart peace negotiations and contrary to international law.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
I thank the Minister for his Answer, but
“no country, however large, can dismember its neighbour and break international law without consequences.”
These are the words of Boris Johnson when Foreign Secretary, in an article published on 22 February 2018 criticising Russia for its annexation of Crimea. The Minister accepts, as I understand it, that the possible annexation by the Israeli Government of land on the West Bank would likewise be illegal, but otherwise the Government’s response is an exercise in hand-wringing, as evidenced by the response today and by the answer given yesterday to the Written Question put down by my noble friend Lady Northover.
The possibility of a just, two-state solution is being dismantled before our eyes in favour of a one-state imposition, all endorsed by President Trump. What is the Government’s position? Do they accept the inevitability of annexation or will they condemn and seek to prevent it? We are entitled to know; the Palestinians are entitled to know as well.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
Can we please have short questions? These are not speeches in a debate, it is Question Time.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the UK position is absolutely clear. Any unilateral moves towards annexation of parts of the West Bank by Israel, as I have said, would be damaging to the restart of any peace negotiations and, as I say again, contrary to international law.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
Calling for harm to Jews, holding the British-Jewish community responsible for the actions of Israel, suggestions of disloyalty, conspiracy or undue financial power and Nazi comparators are all outwith the agreed IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. Does the Minister agree that robust criticism and debate, while vital for democracy, are undermined by those who demean and dehumanise through hateful and abusive language?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with the noble Lord. As he will know, the Government are a strong supporter of the IHRA definition; in that regard, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Pickles. The United Kingdom stands very much on the sentiments that the noble Lord has expressed. Any kind of bigotry or hate against any community is unacceptable.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, the last time I was in Israel, I told the mayor of Jerusalem that the settlements were a mistake. He said: “What do you want me to do, police the ethnicity of land sales between Israelis and Palestinians?” If most Palestinians recognise that a land swap for the settlement blocks is the pragmatic way forward, should not we in the UK be doing the same?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, as my noble friend will know, our long-standing position remains that the United Kingdom believes in a peace negotiation, a settlement between both sides based primarily on the 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, as would allow understanding of the position on the ground. Our position in that regard has not changed.
The Lord Speaker
I call the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon. He is not there. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that everyone who wishes the best of futures for both Israel and the Palestinian people should be giving all the support they can to the people trying to bring about a two-state solution, and that therefore no support for any unilateral action should be given? It does not matter who is taking the unilateral action, whether it is Israel, the Palestinian people or any other actor in this conflict. Real friends of Israel should surely be against any unilateral action, which is bound to be only an obstacle on the road to peace, and that should apply to land annexation by Israel or calls from the Palestinians for boycotts and sanctions against Israel. Can the Minister confirm that the policy of Her Majesty’s Government is still to do everything to help bring about an agreed two-state solution for both parties?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I have already stated the Government’s position and I am happy to restate it. We believe in a two-state negotiated peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the Israel Attorney-General’s office has warned the Israeli Prime Minister that annexation could trigger an International Criminal Court investigation into senior army officers and others. Will the Government co-operate if such an investigation occurs?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I am not going to speculate on what may or may not happen. It remains very clear that we support a negotiated settlement between both sides, as I have said. As for anything which the ICC brings forward, we are supporters of the ICC, as the noble Baroness will know.
Lord Polak (Con)
I refer the House to my interests as stated in the register. At his last speech to the Knesset on 5 October 1995 on the ratification of the Oslo accord, Yitzhak Rabin stated:
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley”.
Just one month later, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and others signed an Early Day Motion as a tribute to the murdered Prime Minister, describing him as
“a man of great courage and vision who led his country … along the path towards peace”.
The noble Lord was right to do so then and, I guess, would do so again. Does the Minister agree that the Council for Arab-British Understanding would be fulfilling its mission and be in tune with government policy by writing to the Palestinian leadership and other Arab states urging the Palestinians to sit down and talk peace directly with the Israelis?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on the vision and the courage of the sadly passed-away Prime Minister Rabin. He brought peace to the region and his vision is what is needed now. Of course, I support all negotiated settlements, and we call upon both sides to sit down together and reach an agreement that works for Israel and for the Palestinians.
Baroness Deech (CB)
This proposal—so far it is only a proposal—over long-disputed territory has been taken out of context. I hope the Minister appreciates that. It relates to the Jordan valley, which has always been part of likely land swaps. It forms part of an overall vision to have a Palestinian state in the remainder of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The outright rejection of the entire US plan and adherence to past, failed plans are certain to condemn all sides to continued conflict. The Saudis have called on the Palestinian leadership to engage in direct negotiations with Israel on the merits of the US proposals. Can the Minister tell the House whether the UK Government have made representations to the Palestinian National Authority to do the same and get on with negotiations?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we implore both sides to sit down and negotiate so that an agreement can be reached in the interests of both peoples.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, it is clear that annexation does not mean the takeover of the West Bank, but the takeover of some parts that have been on the table in every suggested peace deal for decades—namely, in land swaps such as in the Jordan river valley, as has been mentioned, in exchange for land elsewhere. Does the Minister agree that this is a vital opportunity for Mr Abbas to negotiate again for a two-state solution?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I agree that what we want to see and what is required—it has been a long-standing position, and we remain steadfast—is a negotiated two-state solution that works for Israel in terms of its security concerns, and provides for a sovereign Palestinian nation.
The Lord Speaker
My Lords, I fear that the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We might have got one or two more supplementary questions in had not some of the others been so long. I thank everyone who has taken part today. That concludes the Virtual Proceedings on Oral Questions. Virtual Proceedings will resume at a convenient point after noon for a Private Notice Question on the impact of Covid-19 on higher education.
Arrangement of Business
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, Virtual Proceedings of the House will now resume. I remind Members that these proceedings are subject to parliamentary privilege and that what we say is available to the public both in Hansard and to those listening and watching. Members’ microphones will initially be set to mute and the broadcasting team will unmute them shortly before we reach their place in the speakers’ list. When Members have finished speaking, their microphone will again be set to mute.
The Virtual Proceedings on the Private Notice Question will now commence. I will call the Private Notice Question in the normal way, and supplementary questions will be asked in the order shown on the speakers’ list. Please ensure that questions and answers are short. A single question with a concise answer will ensure that we get through as many Members’ questions as possible. Each speaker’s microphone will be unmuted prior to them asking a supplementary question, and returned to mute once their supplementary question has finished.
Higher Education
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blunkett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the announcement on 4 May of the support package for universities and students as a result of the impact of COVID-19, what steps they are taking to protect (1) the quality, and (2) the accessibility, of higher education.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, all registered providers must comply with the Office for Students’ conditions for quality and access. We are protecting the interests of students by stabilising the admissions system, bringing forward £2.6 billion of forecast tuition fee income to help universities’ cash flow, and providing students with more support. This includes help for universities to reprioritise spending to increase student hardship funds, to support students to continue to access their university education.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration of interests. Will the Minister kindly confirm that the definition of the 5% uplift on student numbers is forecast and not any historic benchmark? Will she confirm—perhaps not today, but in writing—an urgent timeline for the publication of the work of the research sustainability task force in respect of the likely catastrophic loss of income from overseas students and the urgent need to underwrite research funding, should cross-subsidy be no longer available?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the precise figures to determine the 5% uplift on the cap will be provided at provider level, and the methodology for that will be published shortly. The task force is made up of members from the Department for Education, BEIS, the devolved Administrations and the sector, and will meet to ensure the long-term viability of the research capacity of UK universities.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, higher education is profoundly affected by loss of income from overseas students. This will compound the loss of research income from Horizon 2020 and other EU participation programmes, which have long been a critical part of our research success and indeed our cultural richness. What steps are being taken to encourage overseas students to come to the UK and how much further funding can be supplied to replace the substantial money, if not the collaboration, which is desperately needed for our research programmes?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, in relation to international students, the department is working with the Department for International Trade to amend the international education strategy. The clear message is that the UK is open for business and for international students to come at the start of the academic year, but we recognise that different arrangements may need to be made. Those arrangements are in train—for instance, with different visa situations—so that students can begin their courses remotely overseas. We are keenly aware and are doing all we can to support the sector at this difficult time.
Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con)
My Lords, I am concerned about the potential disparity in support across the United Kingdom. Can my noble friend the Minister outline the measures to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government to ensure equity of support across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as England? Can she confirm that the £100 million of public funding for research activities announced by my honourable friend the Science Minister will be available to each of the home nations?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, as I have outlined, the Government’s resource task force is specifically including the devolved Administrations. The changes to student finance affect students in Northern Ireland and Wales as well. We are in close touch with colleagues in Scotland, particularly in relation to English students who will study there and Scottish students who will come to the UK.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a recently appointed member and vice-chair of GB MET, a local FE college. The Government are allowing universities to charge students the full £9,250 annual tuition fee while our campuses remain closed—as long as there are “highest standards of online teaching”. Does the Minister accept that many courses are simply unsuitable for online learning? Students cannot access studios, laboratories, libraries and placements during the current pandemic. The market-driven higher education system has forced students to see themselves as consumers, and they are not getting what they have paid for. It is not fair on students nor on the university institutions.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, most universities have adopted online provision. The Office for Students has been very clear to the sector that the quality of provision that is being offered should be maintained during this period. If a student has any complaints about the quality of what they are being offered, they should deal with it first with their university—but, as the noble Lord will aware, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education can adjudicate on the quality of student provision at a university.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Snowdon Trust, which assists disabled students with the extra expenses attributable to their disability. What steps will the Government take to ensure that disabled students are not further disadvantaged as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic; for example, by exempting them from the student number controls?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the Office for Students has been very clear that the quality of provision for all students should be maintained. There has been particular advice in relation to disabled students and their access to online provision. A letter from the Minister to the sector has highlighted the need to make sure that, where online provision cannot meet the needs of students, they are able to access all the support that they need remotely, including the non-medical help that they are often entitled to. The Equality Act is still in force in relation to the provision of higher education.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
How will the Government’s bailout measures and future policies help universities move away from the wasteful commercial model, where they see themselves as competing businesses, towards a more co-operative model of communities of scholars working for the common good? The kind of waste that could be eliminated is, as the Augar report highlighted, the £500 per student that is spent on marketing. Does the noble Baroness agree that universities cannot afford such sums?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The £700 million is the estimate of the Office for Students for the specific access of higher education to all the schemes that have been outlined. Noble Lords spent many days debating the Higher Education and Research Act, and the Office for Students is a modern regulator, encouraging greater innovation and putting student choice at the centre of our system.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Blower. No? Then I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington. We will come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, if we have time.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that certain practices will have to change in lockdown? One of them is that anybody who needs an assessment of a disability can do that online as opposed to doing it the traditional way, face to face. I remind the House of my declared interests.
Baroness Berridge
The noble Lord is correct; where an assessment is needed for disability support allowance, it needs to be done remotely. We are seeing that in these difficult circumstances there are situations where the use of remote technology has proved to be advantageous, and it might end up being a change or an option in any current system.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
May I congratulate the Government on increasing the number of extra graduates this year? The number amounts to about 34,000, and the Government will insist on certain courses for 10,000. I suggest that they should insist only on courses for the entire number that are related to improving the British economy. We need more technically trained people: more doctors, dentists, midwives, nurses and medical workers. We also need more technicians, engineers and computer specialists who understand cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and virtual reality. We do not need more humanities students—they can learn from home virtually—but the physical presence of all those other students at a university will be needed in September this year.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, in addition to the forecast numbers and the 5% uplift, 10,000 places are reserved, and I am pleased to be able to tell my noble friend that half of them will be in the healthcare sector. Further details on the allocation of the 10,000 additional places will be released in due course.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
The measures are a welcome step for cash flow but do not avoid the projected fall in income of £2.5 billion and the cost to the economy of £6 billion and 60,000 jobs. What is the Government’s response to this assessment from the UCU/London Economics report?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the package that has been announced will stabilise the sector and give all the clarity that can be given at the moment. As I have outlined, the forecast is that the sector will be eligible for £700 million as regards loans and the job retention scheme. However, we are working with and keeping in close touch with the sector. The Office for Students has an individual contacting every provider so that we are in touch with their financial situation going forward.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, the time allowed for the Private Notice Question has elapsed. Virtual Proceedings will now adjourn until a convenient point after 2 pm for the debate in the name of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York.
House of Lords: Allowances
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
1. The Resolution of the House of 20 July 2010 (House of Lords Allowance) shall temporarily cease to have effect in respect of attendances after 20 April 2020.
2. Members of this House, except any Member who receives a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, should be entitled to an allowance in respect of each day of attendance on or after 21 April 2020.
3. “Attendance” means attendance—
a) at a sitting of this House or a Committee of this House,
b) at a virtual proceeding of this House or a virtual meeting of a Committee of this House, or
c) on such other Parliamentary business as may be determined by the House of Lords Commission.
4. The amount of the allowance payable to a Member in respect of a day of attendance should be £162.
5. In respect of attendance at a physical sitting or virtual proceeding of this House only Members who speak during the sitting or the proceeding, or who are otherwise necessary to the proceedings, should be entitled to an allowance.
6. In respect of attendance at a Committee of this House, only Members of that Committee or Members authorised to attend a meeting of such a Committee by the Chair should be entitled to an allowance.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, both Houses have been operating under unprecedented circumstances over the last few weeks and I know I speak for the whole commission membership when I convey thanks to all those who have heeded government health advice and remained away from the House to take part wherever possible in remote proceedings.
Over recent weeks, many of your Lordships, myself included, have had to adapt to considerable technological changes, which have been challenging at times. Although there have been teething issues along the way, we can be both proud and grateful to all those involved who have supported and enabled us to continue to perform our roles as parliamentarians, be that communicating government policy or holding the Government to account.
However, these unprecedented circumstances have raised specific issues around allowances—a situation we are seeking to address through this Motion. The overwhelming majority of Members of your Lordships’ House are not paid a salary but instead are entitled to claim an allowance which recompenses noble Lords for the costs incurred and associated with physically attending the House to undertake parliamentary work. Now that we are working remotely and in the majority of cases not attending the House in person, the commission has agreed that the amount Members are able to claim needs to reflect this new, temporary situation.
Alongside a change in the rate of the daily allowance, the commission has also agreed that we should more precisely define participation in our proceedings. After careful consideration and lengthy discussions, the commission has proposed that the current allowance system be temporarily suspended and the maximum daily claimable rate be reduced from £323 per day to £162.
Eligibility for the temporary allowance will be based on direct contributions in the proceedings of the day, which will be reflected in the public record. This reduced rate applies to Members whether they are actively participating online in a Virtual Proceeding or in the significantly reduced number of physical sittings that take place in this Chamber. Members participating directly in the important work of our Select Committees will also be eligible for the new temporary allowance at the same rate. Simply following proceedings online or signing up to a speakers’ list does not meet these eligibility criteria.
The commission agreed that the half-day flat rate of £162 was the most appropriate amount for the temporary allowance as it aligns with the amount available to those participating in parliamentary business away from Westminster under normal circumstances. Of course, the proposals before your Lordships’ House also retain the current position that a Member does not have to claim anything should they feel so inclined.
The Motion proposes that the temporary allowance arrangements be applied retrospectively from 21 April, when we returned from the Easter Recess and began our new way of working, so that Members are able to claim for remote participation from that date. These changes to our allowance system will of course be kept under constant review.
I am aware that there are very different views across the House and across all Benches about the detail of these proposals. No commission member took these decisions lightly. However, at a time when millions of people across the country are having to adapt to working remotely and are facing considerable financial challenges of their own, it is right that we have adapted our financial arrangements and our burden on the taxpayer to reflect the current working environment we face. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Alderdice
At end to insert—
“7. The House of Lords Commission must determine whether the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 6 either
(a) should continue to be in effect, or
(b) should be replaced with an alternative entitlement to allowances,
and in either case must bring a resolution to that effect before this House on, or before, 30 June 2020.”
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, as a former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and now as a Deputy to the Lord Speaker, I tend to approach these issues not just from a party point of view but from an institutional point of view, trying to understand the impact of any decisions that might be made on the institutions that we are privileged to be able to serve.
Listening to a number of noble Lords across the House, it is clear to me that there is an increasing loss of trust that the House is being treated properly. Yesterday’s Private Notice Question, asked by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, and the supplementary questions to it gave one example. However, the issue goes back much further than the Covid-19 outbreak—to, for example, suggestions that during restoration and renewal the House of Lords should be shuffled off to York, not in order to pay respect to the people in the north of England but to marginalise the influence of the House.
Recent briefings from 10 Downing Street about cutting out anyone over the age of 65 and moving to electing Peers are not thoughtful, creative comments but simply destructive threats whose purpose is to shut down debate in this place. Indeed, that seems to be the Government’s strategy. Having a very large majority in the House of Commons, it is only in your Lordships’ House that real, meaningful dissent is possible. Holding the Government to account is an essential role of Parliament, and that requires the possibility of not just asking questions of government but, from time to time, saying to government, “No, you’ve got it wrong.” In the case of this Government’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis, it is clear that there have been misjudgments and mistakes, some very serious.
I hear Ministers trying to gloss over such questions by saying that there will be time to address them later. That is true, but the time to learn from the mishandling is not just afterwards in the preparation for the next global pandemic, which we all hope will be as far away as the last one a century ago; no, we need to learn lessons as quickly as possible now to save lives. The Government need to hear the reality of what is going on in the health and care sector and in society as a whole.
In such national crises, the initial posture of society is of course to rally round the Government in the hope of finding clear leadership. However, when things do not go well and we find that the level of deaths in our country is one of the worst and that government promises are misleading or unfulfilled, trust, very properly, gives way to criticism. If that criticism is not heard and heeded—for example, in your Lordships’ House—accountability is not fulfilled. If it is heard and heeded, accountability is fulfilled, but, if not, the criticism gives way to hostility and a breakdown of trust and working relationships.
One thing that emerged when I tabled this amendment was that it was not possible for the Opposition effectively to oppose the Government’s position. We are not able to vote in our virtual sittings, although the suggestion that this is not technically possible is, frankly, misleading. As we in the Liberal Democrat group have found, it is perfectly possible to vote using the reaction feature in the Zoom program if one wants votes to take place.
It was also made clear to me that the House authorities did not want votes to take place in the Chamber, the Lobbies or the Royal Gallery, despite arrangements having been made some time ago, because of anxieties about the health of clerking staff. As a doctor and a psychiatrist, I am of course very alert to such issues, but the result is that it is not possible for this House to vote on any issue or to be clear whether the Government’s position has the support of the House. We are told that it will be at least four or five weeks before that capacity is technically available to us in the virtual sittings.
I am very sceptical. It seems that there is an attempt by the Government’s strategist and senior advisor to ensure that your Lordships’ House is muzzled and sidelined during this time of national crisis, and, as populist and authoritarian leaders around the world are doing, to use this crisis to make permanent changes in favour of an untrammelled Executive. That is why I propose that by the end of June the House of Lords Commission should be required to put forward any proposals that it has, whether to continue the arrangements currently being pushed through or to have a return to more reasonable arrangements for the work of the House.
The noble Baroness and her colleagues may feel that what is being proposed is reasonable and appropriate—although to suggest to people in the world at large that working online is not real work at all is hardly appropriate—but if that is the case, the rest of your Lordships’ House would expect that those who make the decision should change their practices and reduce their allowances voluntarily to reduce their substantial emoluments as an indication of some measure of solidarity. After all, we have had too many examples already of leading figures making rules that apply to other people, but not observing them themselves in respect of the Covid-19 crisis.
This House has changed enormously since I came here almost a quarter of a century ago. Those journalists who do not trouble to read our Hansard or come down the Corridor to familiarise themselves with the House as it now is will not be familiar with the fact that there is now a much wider range of age, gender, ethnic and religious diversity, and, particularly, income. The House authorities ought also to appreciate that those who come from well beyond London and the south-east have particular needs if they are to properly represent the concerns of those in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England.
I do not agree with the terms of the Motion brought forward by the Leader of the House, but I have no real way of voting against it. I know from my experience in Northern Ireland that when people find that they cannot express their concerns by voting for change, it leads to a breakdown in trust and relationships, without which no institution or society can work harmoniously. That is why I appeal to her to find a way to take on board my request, which does not take away from the content of the Motion but simply requires it to be reviewed when one could reasonably expect that voting would be possible in a virtual sitting. There are various ways she could do this, and I hope that she will find a way.
I believe that the amendment would have the overwhelming support of the House if it could vote and show it. It is the welfare of the future of the House, not just now but in the long term, that is at stake. I beg to move.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I think that everybody on the commission and a large majority of your Lordships’ House accepts that during these unprecedented times and with us moving temporarily to a virtual House, it was right that the current allowance system should be changed and that Members should receive a reduced amount. There was disagreement on the commission about how much that reduction might be. I argued for a somewhat larger amount; others argued for a much lower figure. The figure in today’s Motion reflects what might be thought of as the centre of gravity of opinion on the commission.
As I said, I wholly accept that some reduction was appropriate. I declare an interest in that I am a recipient of allowances. However, I should point out for clarity that this proposal will, given the constraints on people speaking and the reduction in Select Committee sittings, result in reduction in allowances received by individual Members of between three-quarters and seven-eighths of what people might reasonably otherwise have expected to receive. This is particularly hard on people from Scotland, Wales and the English regions who have unbreakable rental contracts on flats in London. It must, therefore, be seen very much as a temporary expedient.
Any discussion on allowances must be framed against the question: what is the point of your Lordships’ House? Unless we are clear about that we cannot have any clarity about what value to ascribe to it.
Like all institutions, we have a temptation to exaggerate our own importance, but if Parliament ever had a crucial role to play, then it is at this moment in our national history when we are facing a combination of an immediate crisis and, looking forward, a clear need to reassess the nature of our economy and how to better run society for the benefit of all its members. Parliament is the pre-eminent forum for undertaking that role, and your Lordships’ House is an integral part of Parliament.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, there are two issues here: allowances and the wider issue of the conduct of the House during the lockdown, as was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Newby.
The Leader of the House concentrated her remarks on allowances. On that specific issue, I agree with the commission’s proposal for the reasons that the Leader gave. In a time of great crisis when people are making great sacrifices, it is absolutely right that we follow suit. The right compromise on this is a halved allowance, for the reasons given by the noble Baroness. That should continue for as long as we are meeting virtually because the actual costs that most noble Lords—I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that it is not true of all noble Lords—need to meet are lower.
However, I agree entirely with the thrust of the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Alderdice, about the conduct of the House in lockdown, including that our arrangements should be considered emergency arrangements—because they are, or at least I hope that they are, unless the Government make further changes—to deal with an emergency situation. I say this directly to the Leader: the great concern among many Members is that the emergency changes we are all willingly making to meet the exigencies of this crisis may become permanent. As all of us who have dealt with these situations in other contexts know, precedent always becomes the justification for further changes, particularly in dealing with the proceedings of Parliament. Some key aspects of the arrangements for the House in lockdown are causing acute concern; the noble Lords who just spoke were absolutely right to raise them.
Very significant departures from established practice have been taking place. From time immemorial, it has been a principle that noble Lords who wish to participate in our debates can do so. For the first time, as far as I am aware, in the eight centuries of the history of the House of Lords, under changes that are not even the subject of specific resolutions of the House but are the consequence of going online, noble Lords are being told that they cannot participate in the proceedings of the House. The Motion in the name of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, which we will debate this afternoon, goes to the heart of the crisis facing the country: the impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the poor and disadvantaged. Many noble Lords have been told that they cannot participate in this debate because of the arbitrary three-hour time limit that has been imposed and because of the exigencies of the Virtual Proceedings.
The answer is obvious: the proceedings should be longer. There is no reason why we should sit for only three hours. We could sit for five hours. We are sitting only on a limited number of days anyway. Many of us think that we should sit for longer. The noble Baroness can correct me but my understanding is that the Government have been the motive force in restricting our sittings and not holding more debates or longer ones. It is absolutely within our control to fix this.
The second issue is that of a wholly virtual House. It is obvious now to anybody who considers what has happened that the Procedure Committee and the House of Lords Commission made a major error in the arrangements that they put in place for our proceedings after 21 April. They should have moved immediately to a hybrid House, as the House of Commons did. Indeed, it has made a great success of it. I just came into your Lordships’ House from watching Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister was doing a perfectly good job of answering questions and dealing with points made by both the leader of the Opposition in the House and MPs joining via Zoom. That has kept the House of Commons at the centre of the public debate; it has not become invisible. We went wholly virtual, which was a huge mistake —the Procedure Committee needs to get a grip on this when it meets next Monday—and which made us wholly invisible. For the first week of our Sitting, proceedings were not even broadcast, which is a major departure from established parliamentary practice. They are now being broadcast but, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, rightly said, they are not getting a fraction of the attention they get when they take place in this Chamber.
We need to speak bluntly at this point. The Procedure Committee has been very seriously remiss in meeting its duties to the House and to the public, and I hope that it will get a grip and that the Senior Deputy Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord McFall, will fulfil his duties to the House as a whole and not simply implement the wishes of the Government regarding the arrangements for the lockdown.
I hope also that three issues can be addressed immediately. The first is the move towards a hybrid House, so that we can fulfil our duties to the public and do not become invisible. The second is that noble Lords who wish to speak in debates can continue to do so, because that is absolutely central to the performance of their parliamentary duties. If that means longer debates, we should have longer debates—we are here to serve the public, not to serve ourselves. The third aspect, which is vital, is the proceedings on legislation. Your Lordships’ House is a legislature. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that we are tempted to exaggerate our importance, but we should not underplay in any way our importance as a legislature. We make the law and there is no more important function in the country than making the law.
Under the arrangements that we are going to debate in a moment, the rights of noble Lords to participate in the Committee stages of Bills and to fulfil their constitutional functions are being severely circumscribed, and for no good reason. If we had a hybrid House, people would be able to participate in Committee proceedings as normal. We have an absolutely unprecedented situation whereby noble Lords who want to engage in the Committee stages of Bills next week have to give advance notice. This has never happened in the history of the House of Lords: that for Members to participate in consideration of a Bill, they have to give advance notice. The whole point of debate is that there is give and take and people come in as they see how debates continue. I have tabled an amendment that would ensure the automatic recommittal of Bills which have been considered only virtually in Committee, so amendments could be moved thereafter.
We have grave responsibilities to the public during this crisis: to debate the challenges facing the country and to bring to Ministers’ attention the severe tribulations being suffered by millions of people up and down the country. We can do that only if we can make our voices heard, and if we can sit properly. I do not believe that the Procedure Committee has enabled us to do that, so it needs to take immediate radical, remedial action before our constitutional duties are severely undermined.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and a pleasant novelty to agree with every word that he has said. I speak in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice.
When I entered your Lordships’ House four and a half years ago, I spoke of the deep sense of privilege. But I was also very aware that that was underscored by the knowledge that I am not in any way, shape or form a member of a privileged elite. My fear is that the decision we are discussing today perpetuates the dangerous myth that that is all the House of Lords is about, visible or invisible: that people assume that we are simply part—that we are the epicentre—of the privileged elite.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
I declare an interest as someone who receives and claims allowances. I am, I think, the only representative today of the usual channels, and I would like to make a few remarks about how this system will work. No one in their right mind wants to debate allowances—that is reflected in the attendance today—and nobody really wants to make arguments on the subject. I accept that the focus of our work must be on the crisis, how the country is affected health-wise and how we are to come through it job-wise. However, there must be an understanding in the House that many of us accept that there has to be some form of short-term response to protect the reputation of the House, but we should not support it if we think it will undermine our work, effectiveness and reputation in the longer term.
In the short term, as my colleague and noble friend Lord Newby pointed out, the halving of the allowances that we are talking about is not the case. It is more like a quartering. Few people will be able to make more than one intervention a week. If the commission also put out a press release emphasising the benefits of cost-savings, which I accept there were, it raises fears that this is a permanent solution and it will be politically difficult if we then have to put the costs up again.
Turning to my role in the usual channels, I shall tell the House a little about the difficulties of what will happen in the short term and why this must be a short-term solution. Too many Peers will have to intervene in Questions and debates and, more importantly, good people will stand aside to allow others who need the financial support to do so. They will not speak or ask questions when we most need them to do so. The Chief Whips—I am sorry to use this analogy, but 50 years ago I spent time in the London docks—are making me like a shop steward in the casual system who will determine who speaks, who deals with the rationing of questions and, effectively, who gets their income. I do not want that role, and nor should the House want the Whips to have that role.
In the short term, a number of Peers have contractual obligations with their rents. These are the people really committed to this place and who therefore do really good work; they provide for themselves to do that and take out contractual rental commitments. With this level of allowances—I remind everybody that the allowances are for expenses—I think most people who have those contractual arrangements, certainly those in my group, will not be able to meet them, probably through the summer, by the looks of things.
Thirdly, one in 10 of my group is supported by an intern or a member of staff paid for by my group. That means that 10 people’s jobs are uncertain at the moment, should this scheme go ahead in the long term. All those people contribute behind the scenes to the work of this House. We do not see them; they support us. They will face a lot of uncertainty and the Peers will have to make up their minds whether to give up their contractual obligations to those people. So do not think that it is just us who will be hit by this; there are also the staff who support us. That is on top of all the people paid for by the various state funds, do not let us forget that.
What I am really saying to the House is that the commission needs to show leadership—I would have done. I think I behaved in this way in any organisation that I ran as a manager: if I cut people’s wages or made people redundant, I cut my wages. I did not take a wage increase or a bonus. That should flow across our organisation, if we are to provide leadership in the short term.
This scheme cannot last in the medium term; it is a short-term response. I accept that, so let us make it so. Therefore, in the short term—we do not want to wait until 29 June to do this; we need to start now—we need to define what work in the House means, because it does not mean just intervening in the Chamber, so that we can introduce a new revised scheme when we have the hybrid Parliament working in June and onwards. It is sadly not acceptable that we should settle our own allowances and money—the Commons has come to realise this—so we need an independent review, which will take a bit longer. That is why we need a short-term solution after this scheme is approved today. We need something longer-term, to be looked at independently and outside.
That is the advice I give this House. Obviously, we accept that we have to do something in the short term, but it would be very unfair on the effectiveness of this House and its Members if this is seen as anything other than a short-term, temporary scheme.
Baroness Northover (LD)
I, too, am speaking in favour of my noble friend Lord Alderdice’s amendment. Having come through the virus, I am able to be here and am glad to have the opportunity. Many of my colleagues, of course, cannot be here.
The United Kingdom is going through an extraordinary crisis and the Government have much that they must tackle. This is a global crisis with huge implications. As the noble Baroness will know, over 200 Members of the House that she leads have written to the Lord Speaker, making the point that it is our duty as Members of the House of Lords both to help the Government and hold them to account. Given the gravity of this crisis, we need urgently at least to return to our normal sitting pattern. We rightly allowed the Commons to be prioritised in setting up hybrid procedures. Now that it has been done, the same must urgently happen here. As the letter says, the implications of the pandemic are huge. There are issues of health and safety, economic damage, civil liberties and human rights, and many aspects of each. There is so much to cover. Just yesterday, the Lords examined the financial stability report, which had passed unseen by the Commons because it had not even been published when they waved it through.
Internationally, some Governments and others seem to be taking advantage of the cover of coronavirus. It is our responsibility to make sure that a spotlight is shone there too, given that the United Kingdom aspires to global leadership and is a member of the UN Security Council. Therefore, there is more for us to do, not less, so all effort must be put into the Lords returning as the second and scrutinising part of Parliament, and impediment must not be placed in the way of that. However, it has been, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and my noble friends Lord Stoneham, Lord Newby and Lord Alderdice have made plain.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, said about a ministerial pension. I was an unpaid Minister through most of the coalition. The Government Chief Whip said at the time that none of us would lose out. Clearly, we need a sunset clause for this proposal, which assumes that we will be working less, not more. If this proposal is to go through, clearly the salaried members of the commission must show leadership by voluntarily taking a pay cut, not to 80% but along the lines that will result from this proposal. The sooner we at least move back to our usual days and hours in this crisis, the better.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is quite clear from the comments we have heard already that we indeed live in extraordinary times for our country. Indeed, I do not recall ever speaking to such an empty Chamber. That is not because I am a brilliant speaker whom everyone floods in to listen to; it is because Members take their responsibilities seriously and are in the Chamber to take part in the work that we do.
On the very day it was announced that the number of deaths in the UK from coronavirus is now the highest in Europe, we also got more information on the alarming number of deaths in social care situations. It is very sobering for us to be here today talking about the issues before us. What is happening across the world brings enormous responsibilities not only for the Government but for the opposition parties. Parliament also has responsibilities—to ensure that those on the front line have the equipment, the protection and the support that they need, and that those trying to manage their lives through this crisis and beyond know that they have all the support and information which government and society should provide for them.
The Government decide the Order of Business. I am sorry that the first item up today was allowances. It has been reflected in the speeches that we have heard. Not one person has talked about the allowances without talking about how the House operates. My noble friend Lord Adonis has some amendments on this later, but he touched on it when he spoke earlier. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, when moving his Motion, spoke about how the House operates and our responsibilities. I would prefer the allowances Motion to be much further down the agenda. I hope that the Minister can take that back and discuss it with the usual channels. It was not the most important item before us today. Having said that, it is important, and has caused a lot of discussion.
I will speak briefly on some of the other issues, but on the issue of allowances the Minister’s comments about the difficulties in reaching this compromise Motion before us reflect the inadequacies of the current system of allowances that we have heard about from others. Those deficiencies cannot be corrected in a Motion during a crisis. The existing system and the new system being proposed also reflect the perception of Parliament. Both are predicated on being physically or virtually in the Chamber, and now we have the added criterion, which the Minister supports, that at Oral Questions, even if someone is on the list to speak, they have to be engaged in listening at least 30 minutes beforehand. If somebody else speaks for too long and goes over—and I do not want to curtail Ministers from giving complete answers to questions—and do not get in, that is no longer deemed a participation, even though they are present in the virtual chamber.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank all noble Lords for their comments. I am going to restrict my comments on this Motion to allowances, because we will come on to some broader points that noble Lords raised on other issues in debating the next Motion. However, I am very happy to reiterate the words of my noble friend Lord True yesterday: there is absolutely no basis to the Sunday Times story. It is not government policy and nothing that I recognise, and I am very sorry for the hurt and upset it has caused in your Lordships’ House. I put on record again that it is not true.
Regarding the number of contributions, this debate has made clear the difficult decisions and balances that the commission had to strike in coming up with these proposals. I completely recognise, as we all do, the very real-life consequences once decisions have been made. That is why, as I said in my opening remarks, the allowance will be under constant review. We are in a moving picture and in unprecedented times, as I think everybody recognises. We are doing our best to move as and when we can to ensure that we take all this into account.
The voting Lobbies have been set up, but I very much hope that the noble Lord will not feel the need to use them today. I reiterate that this is under constant review. It is temporary, along with all the proceedings that we are undertaking. However, despite all the issues raised by noble Lords, and the restrictions we are dealing with in the Virtual Proceedings, I believe that we are able to do our job in very difficult circumstances. We are all very grateful to all those supporting us in being able to do so, notwithstanding the very real impact this is having on so many people’s lives.
Lord Newby
The noble Baroness has not really addressed the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Alderdice. Can she confirm whether she personally, and on behalf of the Government, believes that there should be a review? If so, when does she believe that should happen by? If she does not think so, on what basis does she think we can continue with what everybody accepts is an unacceptable, temporary situation, without any sense of when it might come to an end?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As the noble Lord is aware, since he is on the commission, this is not a government decision but a decision of the commission, on whose behalf I am speaking. The Motion makes it clear that it is a temporary arrangement. As noble Lords know, I have said that it is under constant review. We can discuss with the Lord Speaker what that reviewing may look like, but it is not my decision alone as I am part of the commission.
We will have to see when and how we start to move. We are anticipating new guidance over the weekend on what restrictions will be happening. I am sure that all of us in the House will look at how to implement them. We all want to return as a House, as everyone has stated, but we have to stick to government guidelines and ensure that we have a safe working environment for Peers and staff. We have put Virtual Proceedings in place and are trying to roll them out. We are trying to increase the amount of business being done in Virtual Proceedings, which we will obviously discuss on the next Motion as we look to take more legislative stages online.
This is a constantly moving issue. I can assure noble Lords that—whether they know it or not—my staff and team, through the usual channels and with all the other leaders, are working constantly to ensure that we are doing our best to allow noble Lords the opportunities to address the issues that they want to.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I want to press the noble Baroness further, because I asked about her role as the Lord Privy Seal. I appreciate that she speaks as a member of the commission, but she is a member of it as the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of this House. What discussions has she had with the Government? In her role as Lord Privy Seal—a position that I think Thomas Cromwell held as well—it would be nice to know that she had been discussing the role of this House with the Government.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Yes, I am very happy to say so. One of the only other items on an agenda largely about coronavirus, in Cabinet and elsewhere, is that of parliamentary business. I am therefore able to give regular updates on the work of the Lords. I have been discussing with my Commons colleagues the work they are doing and how we can roll that out, and I am of course raising House of Lords’ issues on a regular basis within government; that is my job and that is what I do.
Baroness Northover
Will the noble Baroness show the leadership that one would expect of the Leader of the House and halve her salary also?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am not going to make a commitment to do that now, but I will certainly reflect on it.
Lord Adonis
I fully accept the Leader’s commitment to these arrangements being temporary, but the best guarantee that the House can have of that is a sunset clause. Why will the Government not agree to that?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I have said, these issues are under constant review. We are looking at them all the time, but a sunset clause sets an arbitrary date. These are temporary measures and we are looking to develop things. Lots of ideas have been mentioned today about how we may wish to move forward, and we are committed to that. I think that that negates the need for specific dates.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
I do not think the noble Baroness answered the question that I raised. In showing leadership, she must go back to the commission this week, or next week—whenever it is due to meet—to start some of the work that will be required when this scheme ends. It is not good enough to wait until the end of June. We have work to do to define what business in the House means. Is she prepared to go back to the commission and recommend that that work should start straightaway?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am sure that all members of the commission—a number of whom are here today—including me, will take that on board. We meet regularly, and I am sure that such discussions will happen. The noble Lord is absolutely right: as this develops, there needs to be thinking on allowances, our proceedings and a move to a hybrid House. We will need to have regular conversations to make sure that we can come up with solutions that work for Members and for the business of this House.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated in this debate—a slightly longer one than perhaps we might have expected, but that shows the strength of concern and feeling. I confess to a degree of disappointment. I do not think that the noble Baroness, or the Government in general, quite understand the import of what was being said. I focused more on the institutional than the individual consequences, which other noble Lords spoke to— I shall not name everyone who participated.
As she finished, the noble Baroness spoke about the fact that we are expecting announcements at the weekend on what will happen, and of course we look forward to that. But it is another example of the same problem. Her right honourable friend the Prime Minister chose not to do it in the House of Commons but to do it on a Sunday evening, when he would be the focus. The Speaker in another place has made it clear that that is not proper parliamentary process or procedure. It is crucial that these matters are brought back to Parliament and that Parliament is given its place.
The noble Baroness could have, without accepting the amendment, given an undertaking to fulfil its requirements on her own word, and I would have accepted that. I think that we will all have to go away and reflect on the consequences. I hope that she and her colleagues will realise that they have now created a situation where trust has got to be built, rather than depended upon, because some of it has simply evaporated. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, as is the proper process in your Lordships’ House. I do so not because I agree with the Motion, but because it is what we have to do.
Business of the House (Virtual Proceedings relating to the Committee stage of public bills and to Messages and First Readings)
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That, further to the resolution of the House of 21 April, until further Order—
1. Committee stages of public bills may take place in Virtual Committee.
2. Such Proceedings shall follow, so far as practical, procedure in Grand Committee as modified by any guidance issued by the Procedure Committee.
3. A Virtual Committee is empowered to amend a bill, stand part its Clauses and Schedules, agree its Title and report it to the House.
4. No amendments may be tabled after the deadline prescribed by the Procedure Committee for consideration in Virtual Committee.
5. For the purposes of Standing Order 47(2) (Commitment of Bills) any motion to discharge an order of commitment is to be moved at a convenient point in physical proceedings, and Virtual Committee may be cancelled without motion if no amendments have been set down before the deadline for production of the Marshalled List.
6. Notwithstanding Standing Order 41(2) and (3), messages between the Houses may be sent and received, and a bill sent from the Commons may be read a first time, irrespective of the sitting of the House.
7. The provisions of this Order shall be applied in accordance with guidance issued under the authority of the Procedure Committee from time to time, which may vary the provisions of the Companion to the Standing Orders insofar as they apply to Virtual Proceedings.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, from next Wednesday we will begin taking the Committee stages of public Bills virtually. These virtual Committees will constitute the Committee stages of these Bills in the same way a Grand Committee would in normal times and will be able to take decisions in the same way. I make it clear from the outset that while virtual Committee sittings will be time-limited, Committee stages will not: we do not time-limit the consideration of primary legislation and will not start now. More time will be found for any virtual Committees that take longer than expected, following discussions between the usual channels. This is the same process that has previously been followed when Bills are taken in the Chamber or the Moses Room.
Last Thursday, the Procedure Committee agreed the new temporary virtual procedures and has subsequently issued detailed guidance on how Committee stages will work. The guidance, including this Motion, was issued on Monday. I urge all noble Lords to familiarise themselves with the guidance. Notice of the first virtual Committee, due to take place next Wednesday, was given via last week’s Forthcoming Business. Subject to the overall cap I shall now set out, any Member of the House may take part in a virtual Committee. However, as with all our business at the moment, Members will need to sign up in advance to take part, and only those who do so will be able to participate in proceedings. Those taking part will also be asked to indicate in advance which amendment or groups of amendments they wish to speak to, in order for the digital service to ensure that Peers can be part of the broadcast proceedings. Those Members who table or add their names to amendments will be signed up automatically.
The deadline for tabling amendments for virtual Committees will be one day earlier than normal: 5 pm three working days before a virtual Committee is due to take place, or 4 pm if that day is a Friday or in recess. It will not be possible to table amendments once the deadline has passed, so that groupings can be agreed and Members signed up to participate in good time. Since the House returned on 21 April, we have steadily increased the amount and type of business we take virtually. Our Virtual Proceedings have become smoother as we have become used to them and they are now being broadcast to the public in the same way our physical proceedings are. It is necessary for Members to sign up in advance of Virtual Proceedings, so that the digital service and broadcasting team know which Members are taking part and can support them properly, as I am sure all noble Lords who have taken part in the proceedings so far have seen as they get ready to take part. Noble Lords who are not able to take part are, of course, able to view the proceedings, and the Procedure Committee, not the Government, has set the deadlines for signing up, as is right and proper.
I know that questions were raised in the previous discussion about time limits and caps on the numbers of Members who can participate. These are not arbitrary rules; there are reasons linked to the administrative and broadcast capabilities of the House. The House authorities, the digital service and the broadcast team are already working at maximum capacity. Staff across the House are working long hours, working in reduced teams so they can do their jobs while respecting social distancing, and travelling on public transport to get to the House to allow us to participate virtually. They are here. I am sure noble Lords all appreciate the huge effort they are putting in on our behalf, but we have to be mindful of the demands we put on them and make sure they are giving them the space and ability to do their jobs to the best of their ability, which is absolutely what they are doing. I place on record again my thanks to all those who have worked so hard, and continue to do so, to support us. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Adonis
To insert at the end:
“8. All bills considered in a Virtual Committee shall be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration in the Chamber.
9. This Order shall expire on 30 June 2020, or earlier if the House shall so order.”
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the first part of the amendment provides that:
“All bills considered in a Virtual Committee shall be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration in the Chamber.”
It may be convenient for the House if I speak to the second part of the amendment too, which is that this order—the arrangements that the Leader has just proposed for virtual Committees—
“shall expire on 30 June 2020, or earlier if the House shall so order.”
First, I echo every word the Leader said about the staff of the House. We pay tribute to them and recognise the great sacrifices they have been making and the intense pressure they have been working under. We fully accept that—in so far as Virtual Proceedings need to take place, which is the key proviso in this respect—special arrangements need to be put in place. I in no way question what the Leader said in that regard. The point that goes to the heart of the matter on Committee stages—and the reason Committee stages are so important—is that this is the House’s role in making the law, which is the most important function we undertake on behalf of the people.
The key issue is how far we need to consider Bills in these virtual Committee stages anyway. We are in a crisis. The overwhelming object of our public duties should be focusing on resolving the crisis. Looking at the legislation it is proposed that we take in Committee next week, it is not clear to me why any of this needs to be considered until the crisis is over. We are considering this legislation at the Government’s behest. The Government are imposing these requirements on the House, not the House itself.
The House’s duty is this. If the Government believe that legislation needs to be considered during the crisis—it is the Government’s decision that the legislation should be considered—our job as parliamentarians is to put in place proper arrangements to see that parliamentary scrutiny takes place in accordance with our constitutional requirements. The problem with the virtual Committees as currently proposed is that this is not the case. The Leader said that Members can take part, but in order to take part—as she said in her remarks—they have to give advance notice of the specific amendments they wish to participate in. This is a radical breach from the House’s normal procedures. Members cannot vote in Committee; there are no arrangements for voting. There are no arrangements at all for spontaneous contributions, and at the moment there is no automatic procedure for recommittal.
I therefore press the Leader: what will happen to these Bills after their virtual consideration? What is the procedure, if noble Lords are dissatisfied with the consideration that has taken place in virtual Committee, for recommitting? My understanding—the Leader can correct me—is that the House itself has to vote for recommittal; it is not an automatic procedure. In this amendment I propose an automatic procedure of recommittal to a Committee of the whole House, which would be either the House itself or the hybrid House, if by then we have the hybrid House. It will not otherwise happen. I would be grateful if the Leader could confirm what the arrangements are in respect of recommittal. If noble Lords are dissatisfied with the consideration that has taken place in virtual Committee, what arrangements will there be for recommittal? If they are not adequate, will she accept my amendment?
The other point of great importance is the temporary nature of these proceedings. If they are to be temporary, the Government should accept a sunset clause. That is the reason I have included the second part of the amendment—that these arrangements for virtual consideration will
“expire on 30 June 2020, or earlier if the House shall so order.”
I would like to press the Leader on one or two specific points. She said that the detailed arrangements for Committee stage were published on Monday. I confess that I have not had a chance to read them, so maybe they are in there. It is not easy to find a lot of the documents being referred to at the moment unless they are pointed up from the Front Bench. Currently, because it is not possible to vote in Grand Committee and decisions can be taken only by unanimity, if noble Lords are not content with proceedings they can object to decisions being taken—I have myself—and they are therefore returned to the House.
In a Committee stage, if a noble Lord online objects to a clause standing part, what happens? Does the clause stand part or not? This is a fairly fundamental constitutional issue. If it stands part, it means that the proceedings in the virtual Committee are of no account, because noble Lords have expressed dissatisfaction and are not prepared to agree to the proceedings, yet the proceedings are still deemed to be agreed. That would be an extreme departure from acceptable parliamentary practice. If Members are allowed to object to clauses standing part, what happens if they so object and the relevant clause is not deemed to be agreed by the virtual Committee? The only solution to that issue I can see is that those clauses are then remitted for reconsideration of the Bill by a Committee of the House.
I would be grateful if the Leader could answer my specific questions. Will she tell us of the Government’s willingness to see Bills recommitted after virtual Committee if there are concerns, what the procedure would be and whether she would be prepared to accept a sunset clause so that for only a very few Bills in these emergency conditions are we expected to undergo this very substandard scrutiny which in no other circumstance but this crisis would your Lordships think acceptable? I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I want to say a few words on this, because the issue of Committees is important and I hope that the noble Baroness can say a bit more about it. It is my understanding that if an amendment is debated in Committee but not voted on, the same amendment can be re-tabled on Report. If noble Lords are dissatisfied with any debate, considering it inadequate or wishing to contribute, they will have the opportunity to do so. That means that our proceedings could be much longer in order to get to that point—it emphasises how superior Chamber proceedings are to Virtual Proceedings.
Committees normally meet on two days a week, Monday and Wednesday or Tuesday and Thursday. It is therefore imperative that the House moves to a proper four-day working week as a matter of urgency—I think that is scheduled from Monday 18 May. Can the Leader confirm that there will be a normal four-day working week for your Lordships’ House from then? That is important for our overall business.
I also understand the issue about capacity; the point has been well made. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said how much we appreciate the work that has been done to get the Virtual Proceedings running in the way they are—I think that most of us have found them better than we anticipated. I take some responsibility for them not being broadcast over the first few days after the recess because I said that, come what may and even if we were not being broadcast, we had to be back, with the opportunity to question the Government. I was pleased that that lasted for only a few days, but it was important that, whatever the situation, we returned on 21 April to fulfil our responsibilities—even if it was inadequate, we had to do so. It has steadily improved since then and we pay tribute to those responsible.
There is an issue of capacity with Committees. We currently have gaps between business that we would not normally have. Will the Leader keep under consideration sitting on a Friday? If we cannot undertake the work that we have on those four days, is it possible to use a Friday? For example, if Committees were not able to meet because the House was sitting or a debate was taking longer, we could have that open as an extra sitting day in the same way as we have sometimes had sitting Fridays.
The noble Baroness should take some pride, and I press her again to pay tribute to those who have wanted to take part in the proceedings—I think she missed that out. I say that in respect of her own Front Bench, of mine and of all those working on the Back Benches and across the House. They wish to engage because they value the work of this House. We have only to look at how the work of this House is regarded outside. I received numerous representations about the debate on the PNQ last week on child protection, even though it was brief, recognising that, across the board and in all parties, this was the House taking that issue very seriously. If we cannot do our business in the four days—and I ask the Leader to confirm that there will be a solid four days as soon as possible—we should keep open the possibility of Friday sittings.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. I had of course made a note to thank all Peers across all Benches, including the Opposition Front Bench, and of course I thank my Ministers as well for everything they have done to contribute to these proceedings. I apologise for having failed to say that in my response last time, but I wholeheartedly support the words of the noble Baroness.
I will address some comments. Yes, we will be returning on Mondays. I think that was the correct date—I do not know all the dates in May off the top of my head. That will be published in Forthcoming Business and we will move towards four-day weeks from then. The usual channels will always keep business under review to make sure that we are doing everything we can. Obviously we will have to see how Committee stages work in virtual proceedings, but we want to balance scrutiny of government with making sure that legislation comes through, and those conversations will continue in the constructive way they always do.
Quite a lot of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, are mentioned in the guidance, which will be circulated to all Peers. It probably has not been done yet, because we did not want to assume that this Motion would be passed, but as soon as it has been, the guidance will be published. If any noble Lords have further questions, please get in touch and we will clarify them. We have attempted to consider most issues, but I accept that we may not have considered some things. However, I can say to the noble Lord that, as the noble Baroness rightly said, post Committee we will move on to Report, and we have amended the rules to allow amendments in Committee to be brought back on Report if there is not unanimous support; so we are having a bit of flexibility and recognising the virtual proceedings.
The same rules apply to Virtual Proceedings as to Grand Committee, and we feel that there will be ample time for scrutiny. As I said, the noble Lord will see that the sessions for Committees are in one-and-a-half-hour slots, again for all the procedural reasons. Regarding Committee stage as a whole, we normally have various days in which to look at Bills in Committee, and that will continue. So while the sessions themselves may be time limited, that does not mean that Committee stage as such is time limited.
As I say, we are also looking at Report. Members of the commission will know that work is ongoing to build a remote voting function, which needs to be built now that the Commons have, I believe, got their system up and running and are planning to start using it. Some of the gremlins they faced have now been sorted out, and we will be building a similar system so that we will be able to vote as well.
I hope that that deals with all the issues but, as I say, guidance is being published, and if that does not answer all the questions, we will be happy to provide more detail. I beg to move.
Lord Adonis
The big question raised by what the Leader said—I will come back on one of the other points in a moment—is what will happen on Report. Can she give to the House an undertaking that there will be no Report on a Bill until we have a hybrid House, so we do not face the same issues on Report as she has just outlined in Committee about noble Lords needing to indicate in advance that they can participate? That is an absolutely crucial issue.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am afraid that I cannot make a commitment on a hybrid House, because I do not know when we are going to move to it or what the guidance will be. We are working towards facilities for a hybrid House at the moment, which we are all committed to, but I am afraid that I cannot make promises about how practical it will be, or anything on that basis. However, we will ensure that when Members wish to vote on proceedings on Report, we will have a system up and running to ensure that they can do that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
But it would be unacceptable at the moment unless we could have some other discussions. My instinct is that Report stage of proceedings as a virtual Chamber would be rather unsatisfactory, so let us keep this under discussion and review. It would be extraordinarily difficult to do it in a way that would satisfy your Lordships’ House.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the Leader has left me more concerned after her remarks than I was before, for precisely the reason that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned. It seems that the only way in which these virtual Committee proceedings would be tolerable to the House is if the House meets at Report stage, so that we can have the proper give and take that we accept as part of our proceedings, people do not have to give advance notice of their desire to participate, and we are not forced to make a really significant trade-off in the quality of our scrutiny when making the law. I put on record, which is all that we can do at the moment, my extreme dissatisfaction. That is not just on my part; I have spoken to many noble Lords who cannot be present today about these arrangements and there is very widespread dissatisfaction.
Since the Procedure Committee has not done a very good job so far of taking account of the concerns of the House, the only way that one can send it a message as to the gravity of these concerns—I understand it is meeting on Monday—is to say that, if it were to come forward with any proposal for the fully virtual consideration of Bills on Report, there would be a very significant backlash from all parts of the House on any such arrangement. I am extremely concerned that the Leader of the House has not been able to give an undertaking today that that will not happen.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I may be able to satisfy my noble friend in some way by saying that this would not be discussed by just the Procedure Committee—the usual channels would also discuss it. I have to say that I have grave concerns. Until we have a fully functioning House or an interim stage of it is hybrid, we may be unable to take Report stages, so we have to have those discussions quite urgently.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend, who has reinforced exactly what I have been saying. As far as I can tell, the great majority of your Lordships would not regard it as acceptable to have a fully virtual Report stage. We obviously have no alternative but to agree to these proposals, but this is done very clearly on that understanding.
To reiterate, it is not clear to me who makes these decisions—I am even more confused after these debates about where the Procedure Committee, the House of Lords Commission and the usual channels come in—but whichever of the various bodies and shadowy institutions it is, I hope that they take account of the remarks made in the House today and that we are not placed in a position in a fortnight’s time of having a resolution tabled which would lead to a fully virtual Report stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Business of the House
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debate on the motion in the name of the Lord Archbishop of York, which is set down to take place in a Virtual Proceeding today, be time-limited to 3 hours.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move that we substitute “five” for “three”—that is, we have five hours for the debate this afternoon, not three. I was very much hoping that the Leader of the House might accept this amendment; if she is willing to accept it, I do not need to proceed further. I see that she is shaking her head, so in that case, I need to detain the House for longer.
This afternoon, we are faced with a situation for the first time. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said he has been in the House for a quarter of a century—he does not look any the worse for it, if I may say so. I am a spring chicken: I have been here for only 15 years. However, this is the first debate in which I have sought to participate in the House—it may be the first time this has happened in the history of the House, apart from at Oral Questions when of course not everyone can get in—when noble Lords who have wished to speak in the debate are not being allowed to do so.
Because of the need to reconcile the Virtual Proceedings with the number of people who wish to speak and the three-hour time limit, which the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has arbitrarily imposed, many noble Lords are being told that they cannot speak in the debate. I am one of the fortunate ones who—I am not quite sure by what procedure—my noble friend the Labour Chief Whip has chosen to allow to speak rather than many of my noble friends who are not allowed. It is completely unacceptable that noble Lords should not be able to fulfil their parliamentary duties and speak in a debate.
The debate in question is that tabled by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, calling attention to the impact of the coronavirus crisis on poverty and disadvantage. That goes to the heart of the crisis that the country is undergoing at the moment. If we have any role at all, it is to debate such issues and to bring them to the attention of the House. The House is meeting only in a part-time capacity at the moment anyway. So far as I am aware, there is no reason whatever why the proceedings today cannot last for five rather than three hours. If they lasted for five hours, all noble Lords who wished to speak would be able to do so, there would be full consideration of the issues and we would be performing our duties properly. Instead, the noble Baroness the Leader is arbitrarily cutting the proceedings of the House and not allowing noble Lords to take part.
If the noble Baroness is not prepared to accept my amendment, she will find that we routinely object, and, as soon as we are able, we might start voting on the time limits for debates—something that has never happened in the history of the House. She needs to understand that this House works through give and take, and one element of that is that noble Lords are able to make their contributions. That is the whole basis and understanding on which the usual channels have worked. If, through force majeure on the part of the Government, which is what the noble Baroness is proposing at the moment, noble Lords are not able to make their contributions, the understandings on which the business of this House is conducted will break down. Indeed, they are breaking down at the moment. I can tell the noble Baroness that, from discussions I have had with other noble Lords, that is happening, because noble Lords are being told that they are not allowed to speak in a debate this afternoon. As I said, that has never happened before.
I am very sorry that the noble Baroness is not prepared to accept this amendment. It seems to be perfectly reasonable. Any ordinary member of the public looking at this debate would find it incomprehensible that we are not able to debate the Motion in the name of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York on the impact of Covid-19 on poverty for five rather than three hours in order to give it fuller consideration. The noble Baroness has not offered a single good reason why we cannot do so. If she persists in imposing this arbitrary time limit on the House, I give her notice that in future I will seek to amend all the Motions relating to the time limits for business of the House to provide for more time. There will be a growing head of steam on this issue across the House and, as soon as we are able to vote, the Government might find that they lose control of the procedures of the House entirely. That will not be in the best interests of the Government or maybe even the House as a whole. I beg to move.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly in support of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. The noble Baroness shakes her head but I too wished to speak in the debate this afternoon and was intending to flag up the global impact. It will be enormously more challenging to meet the sustainable development goals after this pandemic. However, I withdrew from that debate because about 15 Liberal Democrats wished to speak. Therefore, I am an example of what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has said. It is incredibly important, globally, to address this issue and I regret that I cannot put that case this afternoon.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
Perhaps I may be of help. Obviously talks have been taking place in the usual channels. I understand that she cannot support what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is saying, but we are making every effort to end these time limits by widening opportunities in debates, extending our hours and sitting for an extra day. We are moving towards that and I wonder whether she would formally give that backing so that eventually we get back to the point where we do not have time limits or limits on the number of speakers who can take part.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
I entirely agree that today’s debate is extremely important and I am delighted that we have been able to facilitate it. Our Benches have, quite rightly, given a Conservative Party debate to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and I look forward to what I am sure will be an extremely interesting and informed debate by all noble Lords taking part.
I have to reiterate to noble Lords that the House authorities, the Digital Service and the broadcast team are at maximum capacity. They are not able to facilitate longer debates or those with more than 50 Members taking part. I know that it is frustrating but I am afraid that there are practical, administrative and broadcast restrictions, and we are working within those strictures.
I do not dispute that that is frustrating. As a Government, as the usual channels and as the House authorities, we are doing our best to facilitate the Virtual Proceedings, but I am afraid there are limits to what everyone is able to do. I know noble Lords are frustrated but I cannot stress enough how hard people are working—and the hours they are working—to do this. The House of Commons is using broadcasting procedures, as is our House. This is not about trying to curtail discussion and debate, but about trying to facilitate as much as we can within the boundaries within which we are having to work. I am sorry to keep saying it, but it is important to put that on the record.
I am sorry that I cannot agree to the noble Lord’s request at this point—I am afraid it will not be possible—but I hope that everyone who participates in the debate enjoys their time in it. I have no doubt that they will make extremely important points that we as a Government and everyone listening will take into account and reflect on.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
I want simply to draw the noble Baroness’s attention to one reason why people find this frustrating: the repeated assertions about what was technically possible and possible for practical reasons have turned out not to be the case at all. She needs to understand that some of us have been working online and virtually for a long time and in many circumstances, both nationally and internationally. We know what is possible and what is not. There seems to be a lack either of imagination and creativity or of something else. She needs to understand that that is one reason why trust is breaking down on this point.
Lord Adonis
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. How can I choose my words diplomatically? It is not credible to assert that it is not technically possible to sustain an online debate for longer than three hours, as the noble Baroness asserts. That is an assertion—she has hidden behind the technical difficulties—but I do not believe that it is credible. I participate in many virtual meetings that take longer than that. As far as I am aware, no aspect of Zoom means that a meeting cannot continue for more than three hours.
I am afraid we are coming to a sharp disagreement here. It is my view that the reason this is happening is to do not with the technical capacity of the House but with the Government’s desire to suppress debate. That is why, unless this issue is rectified soon, the noble Baroness will find significant ongoing controversy. The precise reason for that is that we are all taking seriously our duties as parliamentarians to consider the Covid-19 crisis and its impact on the country.
Walter Bagehot famously said that an assembly that does not meet is deficient in a primary degree. The House of Lords cannot undertake its responsibilities if it does not meet. Our duty is to see that we meet and give the proper consideration that we should to these weighty issues. I simply do not think that the arbitrary time limits that the noble Baroness seeks to impose are satisfactory or technically required. On that basis, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Business of the House
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debate on the motion in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford, which is set down to take place in a Virtual Proceeding today, be time-limited to 2 hours.
Business of the House
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debate on the motion in the name of Lord Boswell of Aynho, which is set down to take place in a Virtual Proceeding on Tuesday 12 May, be time-limited to 3 hours and that the time limit may be varied by the unanimous agreement of the members taking part in that Virtual Proceeding at the commencement of proceedings.
Business of the House
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debate on the motion in the name of Baroness Boycott, which is set down to take place in a Virtual Proceeding on Thursday 14 May, be time-limited to 3 hours and that the time limit may be varied by the unanimous agreement of the members taking part in that Virtual Proceeding at the commencement of proceedings.
Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [HL]
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the order of commitment of 17 March be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Virtual Committee.
Employment Allowance (Increase of Maximum Amount) Regulations 2020
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That the Regulations laid before the House on 12 March be approved. Considered in Virtual Proceedings on 5 May.
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Fire and Rescue Functions) (Amendment) Order 2020
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That the draft Order laid before the House on 9 March be approved. Considered in Virtual Proceedings on 5 May.
Budget: Economic and Fiscal Outlook
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That this House approves, for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment of the medium-term economic and fiscal position as set out in the latest Budget document and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s most recent Economic and Fiscal Outlook and Fiscal Sustainability Report, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme. Considered in Virtual Proceedings on 5 May.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the Virtual Proceedings on the debate in the name of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York will now commence. This is a time-limited debate. I will first call the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York in the usual way. The question will then be put. Then I will call each speaker on the list in the usual way. Each speaker’s microphone will be unmuted prior to speaking and returned to mute once their speech has finished.
Income Equality and Sustainability
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Archbishop of York
That the Virtual Proceedings do consider the case for increasing income equality and sustainability in the light of the recent health emergency.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I am grateful to the Government Chief Whip and the usual channels for granting me this opportunity to move a Motion that is very dear to my heart—thank you. I commend Her Majesty’s Government for their rapid action in the current crisis and, through unprecedented public spending, working to protect jobs and avert millions of redundancies. It is in the light of this recent health emergency that I beseech your Lordships’ House to take note of the case for increasing income equality and sustainability.
Last Thursday, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, opened a Question for Short Debate on Covid-19 and people living in poverty. I believe that what we are doing today has the potential to make a lasting difference. As Amelia Earhart, the first woman to fly across the Atlantic, said:
“The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity.”
As long ago as 28 April 1909, Winston Churchill, then president of the Board of Trade, gave a speech in the other place in which he said:
“It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty’s subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions.”—[Official Report, Commons, 28/4/1909; col. 388]
Not much has changed since. That principle remains as strong as ever in our national life.
Ten years later in 1919, after a world war and a global flu pandemic, the International Labour Organization constitution affirmed:
“Peace and harmony in the world requires an adequate living wage.”
The economic argument that workers should be paid a fair and living wage was not new even then. In 1776, Adam Smith, said to be the father of modern market economics, wrote:
“Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.”
Many jobs fall far short of this ideal for millions of workers across the United Kingdom. The truth we now see is that the vast majority of front-line key workers are hard-pressed on poverty wages.
Kate Pickett’s and Richard Wilkinson’s ground-breaking book The Spirit Level showed that a wide range of social problems are more common in societies with larger income differences between the rich and the poor. The solution must be to narrow the gap between wages and basic living costs. The creation of an economic equality and sustainability commission would help to facilitate the creation of more income equality and a fairer society that would solve many of the pressing social problems such as the supply of genuinely affordable homes and social care provision. David Cameron, before he was Prime Minister, acknowledged:
“We all know, in our heart, that as long as there is deep poverty living systematically side by side with great riches, we all remain the poorer for it.”
When I was Bishop of Stepney, I soon became aware that low-paid workers there were having to work two or three minimum wage jobs but still struggled to make ends meet. At that time, the Living Wage Foundation, started in Bethnal Green in 1997, called on businesses to recognise the important role of their “invisible” workers and pay them a real living wage.
A recent Living Wage Foundation publication from 3 March 2020 quotes two case studies of year 6 pupils. The first says:
“Mum works extremely long hours to make ends meet—often do not see parents for long periods. Choice between paying bills and paying for food.”
The second says:
“Mum works as a Care Worker and is paid £8.21 an hour. Have to do the dishes and keep things tidy at home—I have my chores to do. Mum is not supposed to work weekends but works Saturday and Sunday—comes home, has dinner, watches TV and goes to sleep. I am lonely. This”—
a living wage—
“would make a difference to my family.”
I am very proud to support the proposals from the Living Wage Commission, which I chaired, for the real living wage, calculated according to the cost of living, providing an hourly rate of pay that is independently calculated each year. Rates for 2019-20 are £9.30 across the UK and £10.75 in London. This living wage applies to all directly employed staff over the age of 18, regardless of the number of hours they work. We need to distinguish between Her Majesty’s Government’s national living wage—a higher minimum wage rate for over-25s—and what I referred to as the real living wage, through which families do not go short.
If we support the principle that those who are least well-off should get the most help, it is shocking that children living in poverty have not been the number one priority in the unprecedented package of support announced by the Chancellor. The coronavirus national emergency is already exposing the inadequacy of the safety net provided by our social security system, as more people who have not previously relied on benefits get to experience how mean it really is. Hopefully, this will lead to a more generous and compassionate system. So, why not increase the national living wage to £10 per hour for everyone now? The time has come for us all to stop talking about welfare benefits and talk instead about social insurance, a term which underlines both that our focus should be on need, and that we are all in this together.
The biblical vision is not of a world in which individualism and consumerism are the purposes for which we are made, but one in which we are created for fellowship and mutual responsibility. It is of a world in which the principal aim of policy is to enhance the well-being—that is, the personal and communal flourishing—of all in society. The challenge is to articulate a vision of that eudaimonia; not a word much used in Yorkshire or in your Lordships’ House, but a useful Greek word to describe the well-being and flourishing of a community and all those within it.
Dame Julia Unwin, in her chapter in the book I edited, On Rock or Sand? Firm Foundations for Britain’s Future, analysed the changing face of poverty in this country, including the rising gap between the rich and the poor. She also highlighted the new and deeply worrying fact that for the first time, the historic link between poverty and unemployment has now been broken. She writes:
“The notion that hard work will enable people to leave poverty and build a life of self-reliance has been broken. Instead the prospects of work provide intermittent activity, limited reward and no security.”
After the current crisis, the major concern of our age is sustainability. It is becoming ever clearer that income equality is a precondition for moving to environmental sustainability. It now seems inevitable that people all over the world will suffer endless environmental crises and hazards, leading to displacement and food shortages. As well as a need for better systems for emergency aid, much will depend on a strong ethos of mutual support between neighbours as well as between countries. That is fostered by greater equality, as Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have shown in both The Spirit Level and more recently in The Inner Level. Greater equality is the basis for stronger community life and indeed a greater capacity to be united in a response to the climate emergency.
It is therefore crucially important to reduce income differences both before and after tax. We need to make income tax highly progressive again and to have higher taxes. To reduce inequalities before tax, all employers should, as a minimum, pay the real living wage. In English cities where Labour-controlled local authorities have set up fairness commissions, they have almost always become living wage employers. They have successfully communicated their real living wage commitment to everyone they do business with and have encouraged them to consider implementing the real living wage for the real cost of living.
The current crisis has made all of us aware of the need to recognise the value of our key workers. Please listen to the words of Linda, a carer:
“Since I started being paid the living wage I haven’t had to worry about if I can pay the bills and more importantly than that, I get to spend time every day with my mum and daughter and I’m not falling asleep on the sofa as soon as I get in. I eat better, I sleep better and I’m much less stressed”.
That is from a page in the Living Wage Foundation’s guide.
The Scottish Government and Wirral Council recently took bold steps to support care workers, committing to uplift them to the real living wage—including ancillary workers such as cleaners and catering staff. Some of the local employers have been paying their workers a real living wage since long before the crisis, recognising that higher pay benefits not only workers but businesses, through lower staff turnover and lower absenteeism. Care work is a huge industry with around 1 million workers supporting some of the most vulnerable people in society, often for incredibly low pay. For too long, its importance has been undervalued and underfunded but now there is a real opportunity to create lasting change in the sector.
As we emerge from this crisis, we must look again at how we value this work and pay for it. It is time to rethink how government, public bodies and businesses work together in order to bounce back better and ensure that there is adequate funding, so that all care work is rewarded with, at least, a real living wage. Then, we must deliver fair pay rises for our key workers and rewards for workers across the economy, to restore what they have lost through 10 years of cuts and slow growth. Let us make paying the real living wage the litmus test for a fair recovery. Let us help our country become a place where the wellsprings of solidarity—of a new, undivided society—can begin to spring up, and then go beyond the real living wage. Income inequality is the great giant of our time, which we must slay. The real living wage is a crucial tool in our armoury, but the living wage is a first and vital step in challenging inequality.
Let me end by sharing with your Lordships the four guiding principles which have impelled me to work tirelessly to promote the real living wage. The first is that all human beings are of equal worth in the sight of God. There is no one and no group of whom we can say “They are less important” or “They don’t matter”. The needs of the other person are always as important as my own. The second is a commitment to offer everyone the opportunity to flourish. A society is well-ordered only in so far as it offers ways of flourishing to all its members. The third is a recognition of our human interrelatedness and interdependence. As the African proverb says, “When a tiny toe is hurting, the whole body stoops down to attend to that toe”. The reality is that we are all inextricably bound up with each other’s welfare. We rely on each other; if one suffers, sooner or later we will all suffer. Covid-19 and the lockdown have vividly demonstrated this for us all. The fourth is the need to accept our duty of responsibility by using our God-given potential both for ourselves and to serve others. I beg to move.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships that this is a time-limited debate. This means that contributions are limited to two minutes, to enable all speakers to contribute and the Minister to give the fullest possible response.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the most reverend Primate on initiating this debate. It is timely, since Covid-19 has provided politicians with the opportunity to put well-being before growth. The crisis which has brought so much pain and damage has also given rise to greater social interaction and neighbourliness, and a desire not only to take care of each other but to show respect and affection for those who care for us. NHS workers and carers across the country have become an intrinsic, tangible part of our family and daily life, whom we now depend on and embrace. Their prominence has been made possible as fast living and the consumer-driven lifestyles that fuel income inequality have been put on hold. In their place, the appeal for voluntary helpers has exceeded all expectations. Party politics effectively evaporated in the corridors of care. In place of prejudices and barriers, we are witnessing social cohesion, friendliness and mutual support. People have rediscovered those they live with.
Income inequalities are divisive the world over. As with other sustainability issues, the social and business consequences are inseparable. Correlations between a nation’s degree of income inequality and its rates of domestic abuse, crime and obesity will come to the fore again. Every one of these “social” problems blights and imposes a huge tax on society. But this health emergency provides the opportunity for a new approach and for closer collaboration, transitioning to sustainability in an overcrowded world.
It is not just our politicians but our companies, our religious leaders and our opinion formers who have a responsibility as we emerge from Covid-19. We must all take ownership; we must all take action; we must all take an interest. We must not ignore the important lesson we have learned: that we can put well-being before the excesses of economic growth.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to pay tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, whose commitment to equality shone through in his opening speech, as it has done throughout his career. I hope that he will continue his campaigning work in the years ahead.
Britain is a deeply unequal society. Income inequality is the fifth highest in the OECD, and there are vast inequalities in wealth, opportunity, education and life expectancy. It is tempting to believe that the Covid-19 pandemic is a great leveller, yet these inequalities have become greatly magnified. The economic effects of the pandemic are disproportionately experienced by the low paid and the young. Those working in shut-down sectors are seven times more likely to be the lowest paid, and those under 25 are three times more likely to work in hospitality or retail—sectors that have closed entirely. The health risks are disproportionately borne by the poor, those from black and minority-ethnic backgrounds, and women, because they are more likely to be key workers, live in cramped accommodation, or have an underlying health condition.
Alongside exposing the inequalities in our society, this health emergency also risks exacerbating them further. Unemployment will be concentrated in the lowest-paid sectors, potentially scarring future employment and earnings. Those soon to leave school or graduate will enter a labour market in severe recession, with lower job prospects and wages. For school-age children, prolonged periods out of the classroom are particularly damaging to those from poorer backgrounds.
Despite this bleak picture, the response to the virus has shown us a better way. While homelessness has doubled over the past decade, funding has now been found to house more than 90% of rough sleepers. Meanwhile, air quality has dramatically improved, as nitrogen dioxide levels have halved. No one, of course, would choose for life to continue as now, but we do face a choice about the society we want to be. As we commemorate VE Day, let us remember how that victory signalled a desire for change, and go forward with the same determination to build a new social contract, fit for the future.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I wish to support the case for a universal basic income. The current crisis has shown the need for people to have access to basic funding, yet the machinery to deliver cash to many people does not exist. Many key workers on whom we now know a functioning survival economy depends—not just health and social care workers but delivery drivers, shop assistants and food producers—are all paid below average. Others, such as those on zero-hours contracts, those living within the cash economy and some self-employed people, are missing out altogether.
The post-Covid-19 scenario may be for higher unemployment and less job security. Work patterns are likely to change radically as more technical solutions are applied. It is true that new technologies may create new jobs, as some argue, but they may also make some jobs redundant. That will leave a small number of lucrative activities; some, but fewer, low-skilled and lower-paid jobs; and, overall, not enough employment to go round. We surely cannot contemplate a society were a small minority corner the jobs and opportunities, leaving the overwhelming majority behind. It is not only unfair but likely to prove politically unsustainable.
The scale of government intervention in the past two months shows that a universal basic income could be affordable. If it were set at between £50 and £100 a week, it would provide basic peace of mind and security, but not at a level that would deter people from joining the workforce if they could. It would also make people more willing to engage in consumption, and would therefore act as a stimulus to the economy. It certainly should not be buttonholed in any ideological category. It can be applied in a way that is economically and socially beneficial, right across society, and could sit alongside other targeted benefits. It could be funded through taxation in much the same way as child benefit, which is clawed back progressively, up to 100% from higher earners. A universal basic income would make a significant contribution to evening out income inequality. It is an idea whose time has come.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, one of the main economic risks from the pandemic will be the likelihood of mass long-term unemployment, as we experienced in the 1980s. Today, the Resolution Foundation predicts a 600,000 increase in youth unemployment this year—this is just the beginning. The pandemic is destroying economies across the globe, and recovery will take time. Long-term unemployment destroys a person’s confidence and mental health, while employers are very reluctant to take on demotivated, depressed, unemployed people. The most at risk of unemployment are the least well qualified; this is fundamentally an issue of inequality.
At a time of mass unemployment, the punitive universal credit regime, providing minimal benefits within a fear-inducing sanctions framework, becomes immoral. Unreformed, it will create serious mental health problems, crime, and an even bigger drugs problem, funded by crime, than we have already.
A part of the solution will be active labour market policies and the job guarantee. In 2005 and 2007, the OECD published evidence of the effectiveness of such policies, which ensure that, after a specified period out of work, an unemployed person will be offered work in the public or charity sectors at the rate for the job, probably at the minimum wage. Denmark and the Netherlands were examples of countries which pursued such policies and had low unemployment against the trend. Had the UK adopted these policies, we would not have had 2.5 million out of work for about four years after the global financial crisis of 2008. Yes, there would be a net cost to the Exchequer, but the benefits would far outweigh those costs: the improved employability of those involved and higher tax revenue and lower benefit costs over time; and, at the personal level, less mental breakdown, crime and drug use. In essence, it would mean greater equality and sustainability and a healthier and happier society.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, first, I thank the most reverend Primate for tabling this debate today, as well as for a lifetime’s work of battling inequality. May we continue to benefit from his wisdom and prophetic voice. I also look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby.
I wish to highlight the issue of those particularly at risk because they do not have the right to access public funds. Migrants are more likely to be self-employed, in temporary work, or working in industries which have been especially badly hit. They are less likely to own their own homes, risking homelessness if they lose their income. Concerns have been raised that migrants may be compelled to continue working even if they become ill as to stop would be to risk destitution, which puts their and others’ health at risk.
We rely on the contribution of migrants to our society and economy. Some 850,000 migrants work in our health and social care sector, while they make up 40% of our food manufacturing industry. These are essential industries. They are working on our farms so we can have food on the table. We owe them deep gratitude.
After the Grenfell Tower disaster, the Government confirmed that
“all victims, irrespective of their immigration status, can access the services they need, including healthcare and accommodation.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/17; col. 167.]
Can the Government give a similar confirmation now, and suspend the NRPF condition to allow migrants to access public funds?
Many of those without access to public funds are supported by small charities, which themselves face existential threats due to the health emergency. Will the Government continue to offer more support to those charities before they are no longer able to function and pick up their normal operations?
Christ teaches us that every human is equal before God. I pray that, as we face these extraordinary times, we seek to enact policies that affirm the dignity and worth of all as we have seen it in their contribution to us.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am not in favour of a universal basic income. It does not add up arithmetically, it does not improve living standards and, where it has been tested, it has not been a great success. I ask my noble friend about food and feeding those on the lowest incomes—a subject one of the House’s committees is currently looking at. The statistics are that, in 2017, 90,000 people died prematurely due to ill health. Some 20% of the population suffered from obesity, and the cost to this country in that year was £54 billion. Much needs to be done by the Government and us, both corporately and individually, to reduce these numbers.
Food standards and quality are integral to this. Can my noble friend the Minister tell me, in taking back our sovereignty and tackling this problem, which is more important—maintaining our high food and welfare standards or agreeing a trade deal that allows cheap food imports farmed to less rigorous standards? I also ask my noble friend what plans the Government have to secure the supply of basic food to those who can least afford it, particularly in these troubled times.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, Covid has revealed the injustice of inequality in a savage way. It is a disease that has disproportionately hit the poorest. Lockdown has further exacerbated these inequalities, and remote working is mostly a luxury of white-collar professions. Those on low pay and in the gig economy have little financial option but to carry on working, with all the risks that that brings. Our children are now schooled remotely, but the Sutton Trust shows that huge inequalities exist in the provision of education. However, I believe that there is a Beveridge moment coming as the crisis unfolds—a chance to come together to shape the kind of country we want to rebuild. I make a plea for this Beveridge moment to have four key principles about equality at its heart.
First, we need to rectify what has become one of Britain’s largest comparative disadvantages: our long tail of low-skilled, low-wage workers. We have too many workers who revolve in and out of no work and bad work, with no protection or assets, who are told to take any job and climb an escalator of prospects that, frankly, does not exist. It has to stop.
Secondly, we need to redesign our public services to place prevention of life-chance inequalities at their heart. From health care to social care, education to housing and transport to culture, every service should have the goal of pre-empting deprivation at its core.
Thirdly, we must put equality and social justice at the heart of the tax choices we will have to face as we look to pay for our response to this crisis. Germany responded to reunification with a solidarity tax, a supplementary income tax for the wealthiest Germans. I believe it is time for us to contemplate a UK version of this and to grasp the nettle of taxing the sources of huge inequalities in wealth, in particular land and housing.
Lastly, the impact of Covid on the poorest countries is likely to be more catastrophic than in the developed world, but the architecture of international co-operation is now weaker than at any time since 1945. The UK should lead the effort to rectify that and make the assembly of an international coalition for greater global equality a foreign policy priority.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, there is a business phrase: “Never waste a crisis”. We must not waste this crisis. We must not accept a return to the status quo. Our two priorities have to be climate change and a fairer, more equal society.
I will talk for a moment about Wales, my home country, which for decades has been the poorest part of the UK. Some 730,000 people, a quarter of the population, live in poverty, and income in Wales is about 90% of the UK average. This is a product of different things. Wales is a heavily rural area, and rural incomes tend to be lower. Tourism is very important, but the hotels are shut and the festivals cancelled. Farming faces an uncertain future because of Brexit.
Wales has also never fully recovered from the collapse of the heavy industries and the closure of the mines, but there have been very bright spots of investment—Tata Steel and Airbus, for example. But in the last weeks, both those companies have warned of their perilous financial position. We now face the danger of well-paid, skilled jobs being lost. So poverty in Wales is highly likely to increase after the Covid crisis.
My call is for long-term investment as a priority, first of all in education, from nursery schools through to universities, and secondly in infrastructure, from 5G to rail electrification. These investments must serve to develop our priorities.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for securing this important and timely debate and for his learned and compassionate contribution.
The Government instigated new fiscal policies in the light of Covid-19. These have been welcomed as they were designed in part to alleviate financial disruption to households and therefore promote health security within our borders. The population has adhered to these current restrictions, demonstrating the value to society of the significant investment, but it is not just low income that contributes to inequalities in our society; it is the very varied contracts that people have at the moment. This is the reality for carers who are employed, who may often work on zero-hour or minimum- hour contracts. I hope that, following this crisis, those carers do not have to resort to food banks, or face rent arrears or the difficulty of not being able to work.
I return to the issue of instability of income and low incomes generally. The Taylor review of modern working practices says that we must make flexible working the default in employment contracts. If we did this and moved towards the target rate of 66% of median earnings as a national living wage, we would begin to move towards greater equality in income levels and stability in the country.
I ask the Minister to inform the House about the likely timetable for the introduction of the expected employment Bill, which may well address some of the inequalities that I and other noble Lords will outline today.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Most of us are probably in favour of more equality in general. Some will remember that the Duke of Omnium, Trollope’s Liberal Prime Minister, was especially in favour of perfect equality—yet he was vastly rich and owned thousands of acres.
The best way of helping everyone materially in the long term is to increase the size of the overall cake. The capitalist system is by far the most successful ever devised for making a country richer—compare Cuba and Venezuela with the United States and Canada, or, better, South Korea with North Korea. But—and I accept that it is a substantial “but”—the distribution that results from naked capitalism is not regarded as fair, which is why we have progressive taxation, welfare, the NHS and the living wage, which the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York has of course pioneered. All these allow us to balance fairness with the needs of economics. Moreover, the best measure of equality in a society is generally agreed to be the Gini coefficient, and the fact is that, at least since the financial crisis of 2008, movements in the index have shown that UK society has become somewhat more equal.
As we all know, we have to find enough to pay for the NHS, schools and social care—£230 billion last year, comparable to the total raised from income tax and corporation tax—and, lest we forget, the main provider of taxes is business and the people that it pays and employs. This is why the lockdown must end soon, or we will not be able to afford so much that we value.
Finally, the crisis has shown us that people’s need is not for money alone. We need a society where people show care and respect for our fellow humans. Look how moved we have been by our army of volunteers. Kindness matters, and so do religious networks; one of the horrors of the current rules is that churches and mosques are shut.
I warmly welcome the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby; I have much enjoyed evensong in her beautiful and historic cathedral.
The Lord Bishop of Derby (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, Jesus said,
“seek first the Kingdom of God”,
and in your Lordships’ House, I have caught glimpses of that kingdom: in the warm welcome, in the kind advice of officers and staff, in the patient support of the Church of England Parliamentary Unit, and in the substance of the work noble Lords do, as today.
In January 2015, I became the first woman consecrated bishop in the Church of England. I take this opportunity to thank my friend, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for his support and encouragement, and to pay tribute to his integrity and influence. It is true to his priorities that he uses this debate to champion the poor and continue the fight for justice. It was a particular gift to be “called home” a year ago, to serve as Bishop of Derby and I am proud of the ways in which diocesan staff, clergy, schools and congregations have stepped up in these difficult times. Derby and Derbyshire have responded generously to meet the needs of the most vulnerable: they have made known the kingdom of God.
There are common threads running throughout my ministry, including the fight for equal access, inclusion and opportunity; a passion for the arts, culture and sport; and a commitment to children and young people, with particular concern for the most vulnerable and at risk. It is an honour, therefore, to be vice-chair of the Church of England Children’s Society. At this time of national emergency, we know that there is much to be done: to respond to every child; to keep all our children and young people safe; to support the mental health and well-being of our children; and to protect children and families facing increased financial insecurity as a result of this crisis. The inequalities that affect the more than 4 million children in poverty in our country run deep and are systemic, so solutions need to be long-term and sustainable.
When asked about the kingdom of God, Jesus brought a child among them and said,
“of such is the kingdom of heaven”.
I thank noble Lords for their patience in hearing my plea that we put children at the heart of our work for a more just, equitable and sustainable society.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, we warmly welcome the speech of the right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and her presence now on the Bishops’ Benches. Above all, we thank the most reverend Primate for his contribution, not just in bringing us this debate but for a lifetime of service to the cause of social solidarity. He spoke, as he has throughout his career—throughout his service, from his time as a curate in Herne Hill, when I remember him well—of the importance of solidarity. He said that we are all in this together. Indeed, we are, but we have to make a reality of that, because the truth of the matter is that we are not a more equal society when, even before the coronavirus, UNICEF estimated that there were 2.5 million children living in food insecurity in our own country. Now it is even worse.
The Rainbow food centre, which I know well, has seen an increase of 42% in the number of children now having to turn to it for sustenance. We have to address this and give serious consideration, I argue, to a universal basic income. It is not true that it is not effective. The evidence is, as the LSE demonstrated only too recently with Compass, that a £20 billion scheme would lift one-third of people out of poverty. We know that it is being tried in Spain; we ought ourselves to examine it carefully. If we cannot do that, we can increase child benefit for all, and we ought to. We can and we should revisit the two-child rule. Will the Minister assure us that that is being done?
Social solidarity means “ubuntu”. The most reverend Primate knows that well. We are all in this together; let us demonstrate that with practical policies.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby on her excellent maiden speech, and thank the most reverend Primate for all his work in support of this House, but particularly for his tireless campaigning on issues of financial inequality, debt, poverty and homelessness over many years.
Recent data from the Office for National Statistics has shown that people living in more deprived areas have experienced Covid-19 mortality rates of more than double those for people living in less deprived areas. A postcode lottery of morbidity is unacceptable, and the Government simply must tackle the fundamental inequalities that have put some people at greater risk.
A briefing I received from Citizens Advice in Newcastle earlier this week made several proposals that I hope the Government will adopt to assist households as temporary financial interventions are reduced. It suggests that there should be no sudden cut off to the job retention scheme or the income support scheme, and that there should be long-term increases in the safety net provided by universal credit because many people will find it hard to get back to work when lockdown ends. There should also be a recognition that further extensions may be needed for existing mortgage and debt holidays, and it proposes a coronavirus financial hardship fund, which would be different from universal credit in that it would help people facing sudden essential costs, through a grant or a loan. These proposals seem wise. We should remember that furloughed workers on low pay have had a 20% cut to their incomes.
I was a signatory to the recent call to prevent disadvantaged children falling behind in their learning by means of extra tuition through a catch-up premium for their schools. I hope the Government will understand the vital importance of this, to reduce educational inequalities.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, who has always been courageously committed to the subject of this debate. As he retires as Archbishop, I wish him well for the next stage of his very distinguished public ministry.
The coronavirus has revealed in the starkest terms that the world we have lived in until now is quite unacceptable. For example, it has long been known that life expectancy in the most deprived areas is about 10 years less than it is in the more affluent areas, so it is not surprising—though still deeply shocking—to see twice as many people dying of the virus in those deprived areas than in the wealthier parts of the country. We got too used to the old world, with its grotesque inequalities, too resigned to the notion that this is the way that things always must be. They do not always have to be like that.
At the same time, the virus has revealed that another world really is possible. The population have shown the most remarkable solidarity, the Government in their financial rescue plans have acted boldly in the interests of the whole, and the underpaid hospital workers, care workers and others at the front have rightly been recognised as vital key workers. Let us have a world where they are not only clapped, but also paid enough to live on. The average hourly pay for a care worker in the UK is £8.19 an hour. How many of us could live on that?
We cannot think only of those in our country. We must think of the most vulnerable groups across the world, on whom the global economy depends. For example, there are 64 million migrant workers in the world, and in so many countries, crowded into insanitary dormitories. They have been particularly at risk. People used to talk about cheap labour. Let us talk instead about precious human beings. It sometimes seems as though the world is divided between those who, broadly speaking, are beneficiaries of a capitalist economy, and those who are financial slaves because they have no option except to starve. The world that we have inherited is no longer acceptable. Let us find a new, more humane way to live together.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for his service and wish him and his well-esteemed lady a retirement—not necessarily from campaigning, but from his office—as long and happy as it is well deserved.
After the French Revolution, equality became a very prominent issue. In a sermon, Reverend Robert Shirra, a minister in Kirkcaldy, Scotland, examined a number of groups and concluded that equality does not exist. Not necessarily for that conclusion, a street in Kirkcaldy is called after him to the present day. I accept the conclusion that most human groups have a hierarchy and that where the incomes of members of the group are concerned, that usually leads to hierarchy in levels of income. I believe that this terrible virus has taught us very clearly how much our well-being and our lives depend on one another. Those higher up the hierarchy need a strong interest in the well-being of those who are lower. This should also be a powerful factor in the relationship between different groups. Of course, this is not a new thought. The divine head of the faith that the most reverend Primate and I have professed for a long time required:
“Love your neighbour as yourself”.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate for choosing this topic and for his years of public service, especially for his care for those on the margins and the risks he has taken for justice—from cutting up his dog collar live on air to protest Mugabe, to being willing to be driven blindfolded to try to persuade gang members to identify those who killed Charlene Ellis and Letisha Shakespeare. Even more impressively, he has even cooked for Mary Berry. The House will miss him in retirement, but it was a delight to hear the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby. I look forward to more from her.
Our country is in stasis, our economy in meltdown and our way of life in the spotlight. This crisis is a lens through which we see clearly the way we have chosen to order our society and our world. The disparity in our jobs, our homes and our wealth reveal massive inequality and injustice. Those in overcrowded flats, insecure jobs or freshly unemployed with few savings are having a very different crisis from those who are working at home, jobs and income secure, kids studying online, relishing the peace outside.
Will the Government talk directly to those hardest hit in this crisis before they shape the recovery? It does not have to be like this. We do not have to accept the poverty and inequality, the gig economy and the tax avoidance, the polluters not paying and the erosion of the welfare state. My noble friend Lord Wood is right: this can be a Beveridge moment. We can use this terrible crisis, like the post-war Government did, to say we want a country fit for heroes—in the NHS and social care, in supermarkets and schools, the drivers and refuse collectors, the stressed parents, the desperate carers, the anxious disabled people and the lonely older people. This is a moment of decision. We can make different choices for all of us. The future need not look like the past.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will talk in particular about self-employment. Of course I join others in condemning self-employment that is phoney or abusive, but most of the 5 million independent contract workers prior to Covid were neither phoney nor abused. They brought flexibility to our changing economy and they included many of our most innovative and creative individuals, from IT to industrial design to the arts—a workforce critical to the new economy of the 21st century. The creative industries alone, largely made up of independent contractors, contributed over £1 billion a year to GDP.
The Government finally recognised this in their very welcome Covid self-employment support scheme and to some extent in the bounce-back scheme, although I still think they should have done more, as I have said in previous speeches. But as we move into the next phase, self-employment becomes even more critical. First, many people who have been furloughed will find that they do not have jobs to go back to. Secondly, we need to move into a new economy, not recreate 2019. That means innovation and change.
Universal credit fails to support those seeking to start a self-employed business, whether window cleaning, IT consultancy or film production. This is crazy because it becomes a serious argument for universal basic income. I am personally in two minds about UBI because I can see its pitfalls, but universal credit has proved itself so inflexible and become so much a stick to beat people on benefits rather than a support that it is time to be open to alternatives.
In addition to other arguments for UBI, most of which concern boosting demand, the Government could use such a scheme to underpin a growth shift to self-employment, allowing independent contractors to take risks. It becomes a mechanism for starting businesses as well. No one wants a crisis like Covid, but our recovery should improve the future, not return us to the past.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and thank the most reverend Primate for introducing it. Since the crisis began and the lockdown was enforced, extraordinary hardship has been suffered by many, in particular in relation to their food supply. According to research published this week by the Food Foundation—I declare my interest—5 million people in the UK are living in households with children under 18 and have experienced food insecurity. Shockingly, more than 200,000 children have had to skip meals because their parents do not have enough money. On top of this, 31% of kids who are entitled to free school meals—that is, half a million of them—are not getting substitutes. It was a terrific government idea to supply a £15-a-week voucher to make up for free school meals, but the delivery company that was chosen, Edenred, has been overwhelmed by demand and basically unable to meet it. That has meant a huge number of parents having no access to food.
Once again, it feels as though the Government have not stepped up to the problem of our food supply and its distribution. It has been left in the hands of the supermarkets—which have done really well—and the charity sector, which has played a blinder. We have heard from many other noble Lords about community initiatives and the way in which people have behaved towards their neighbours, which is heartening to see.
I dread to think of the physical and emotional impact on children when they finally return to school. We already know that a lack of good nutrition in the summer holidays can affect the poorest in our society and their academic achievements, and these can go on for life.
The Welsh Government have committed to supporting children through the coming summer holidays. Will our Government do the same? Will they please consider increasing support through the child benefit system, which is the one system that ensures that money gets directly to mothers and children regardless of whatever else might be going on in the family?
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby on her moving maiden speech. I am grateful for all she does to champion the voices of children.
I want to thank Archbishop Sentamu for his leadership in consistently speaking up for racial and social justice. He champions work among young people, notably through the Archbishop of York Youth Trust. He inspires others to do the same.
The Covid-19 pandemic is a dividing experience through its unequal financial impact. The lowest-earning 10% are seven times more likely than high earners to work in a sector which has shut down. Archbishop Sentamu champions the real living wage. In-work poverty is compounded by irregular working hours. Such unpredictability means that families cannot easily save to safeguard themselves from unexpected life events. Eighteen per cent of the north-east’s working population experience insecure work. Turn2us found that people on zero-hours contracts expect a £193 drop in monthly income. These workers often provide essential services such as cleaning and delivery, yet face great financial instability. Will Her Majesty’s Government promote Living Hours accreditation?
Under-25s are two and a half times as likely as other age groups to work in a sector which has now shut down; youth unemployment could rise to 2 million. Long-term unemployed young people go on to earn less and are more likely to be unemployed in the future. What plans do Her Majesty’s Government have to protect young people in the labour market from the detrimental impact of the coronavirus crisis?
This crisis highlights the need for a fairer all-round taxation system in which those on middle and higher incomes, of all ages, contribute more to paying the long-term costs. I hope, too, that we will explore a universal basic income system and not simply dismiss it.
Will Her Majesty’s Government do everything possible to create increased, sustainable income equality and thus create a more just society that looks more like the kingdom of God?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege for me to serve on the Rural Affairs Group of the Church of England. I take this opportunity to pay a personal tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, who is both loved and revered in equal measure in York and North Yorkshire. He brings a very special, very vibrant presence and appears utterly humane at every opportunity. Two particular references come to mind: when he came to pray and preach for us at my invitation in Thirsk, Malton and Filey, and the comfort that he has shown to, among others, Joan, the mother of Claudia Lawrence, who has been missing from York for a number of years now.
The most reverend Primate is absolutely right to focus on inequalities at this time. Government does not usually employ people, except now, through the furlough scheme. I want to refer to the plight of small businesses and the self-employed—those who do employ people. Currently, the self-employed, especially tradesmen such as plumbers, electricians, hairdressers and cleaners, are really struggling. I would like to see them treated on the same basis as employed people at this time of emergency measures. Discrimination is also suffered by older workers, often volunteers, who are struggling for the hours and the recognition that they deserve, and some younger workers are finding it difficult at this time to get on to the employment ladder. Most of all, I make a plea for the Minister to look really closely at how zero-hour contracts can be justified; they must be addressed.
In conclusion, my plea to the Minister is that the length of the furlough scheme should match the length of the closure experienced by charities and businesses during the lockdown and that he will address, and perhaps terminate once and for all, the practice of zero-hour contracts. We all wish the most reverend Primate a long, happy and busy retirement.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the most reverend Primate for securing this debate and for the wonderful way in which he introduced it. This is such an important subject. Many of your Lordships will have seen the front-page lead in last Saturday’s Guardian with the headline “UK’s corona divide”, and,
“People living in poorest areas dying at twice the rate of those in richest areas”.
This is based on new data from the Office for National Statistics.
In my two minutes, I want to draw attention to the part played by tobacco in contributing to these shocking figures. Smoking rates among people in routine and manual jobs are more than twice the national average. Among people who are unemployed, smoking prevalence rises further. Nationally, half the difference in life expectancy between rich and poor is due to higher smoking rates among those on low incomes. Smoking caused around 78,000 deaths in England last year and over 400,000 hospital admissions. Data from the UK Covid symptom tracker app shows that smokers are more likely to report Covid-19 symptoms, and smokers with the virus who need hospital care are more likely to die than non-smokers.
This should be a wake-up call. We must do more to improve population health and reduce health inequalities, not just respond in times of crisis. Investing in tobacco control and stop-smoking services to achieve the Government’s ambition of a smoke-free England by 2030 would reduce health inequalities, save lives and lift over a million people out of poverty. While tobacco addiction pushes smokers into poverty, the tobacco industry makes over £900 million in profits in the UK each year. A polluter-pays charge on the tobacco industry, as advocated by the APPG on Smoking and Health—I declare an interest as one of its officers—could provide sustainable financing for the tobacco control measures needed to deliver the Government’s smoke-free ambition and support the majority of smokers who want to quit to do so.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, in the short time available, it is simply not possible to go into any detail about the measurement of income inequality, which is a complex and contested area. Suffice it to say that, according to the OECD, the UK has one of the highest levels of income inequality in Europe, albeit lower than in the USA.
Of particular relevance to today’s debate, the Resolution Foundation has pointed out that while everyone is feeling the effects of Covid-19, the impact is not equally distributed. Indeed, workers in shut-down sectors such as hospitality and non-food retail are among the lowest paid in the workforce, earning less than half than those able to work from home. There are strong links too with wider social inequalities. Private renters, who already face a great deal of insecurity, are also 40% more likely to work in shut-down sectors than their homeowning counterparts. Key workers, particularly those in health and social care, are more likely to be parents. Indeed, almost 40% of working mothers were key workers before Covid-19 and are much more exposed to health risks. Most starkly, earners in the bottom half of the earnings distribution are twice as likely to be key workers and 2.4 times as likely to work in those shut-down sectors. These are our fellow citizens, who are bearing the economic brunt of the crisis.
From a well-being perspective, those who are most likely to be back at work in a reopened economy—those who may not have the option to work from home—are also those more likely to be on a lower income, at risk and in need of assistance; for example, with childcare. I join others in calling on the Government to start framing policy responses to Covid-19 through the lens of well-being, which can help expose the complex multifaceted problems that it presents and the policy trade-offs that will be needed. Inequalities, be they in income distribution, health or well-being more broadly, are erosive of trust and social cohesion—things that we need now more than ever. Policies such as improving job security as well as proposals for a universal basic income must surely come to the fore.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank my friend the most reverend Primate. We have a shared history as co-protagonists fighting racism in Tower Hamlets. He has been a vociferous advocate for all communities, particularly post 9/11, in addition to his seminal role in the Macpherson and Damilola Taylor inquiries.
The current health emergency is being felt hardest by families on low pay, people with disabilities, and women and children living with abuse; they are experiencing untold financial distress, often relying on community and charitable organisations for their daily sustenance. We are staggering through what is a bleak narrative by any decent standards, given that the geographical areas hardest hit by years of neglect, poverty and social injustice—namely, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Hackney—are also now seeing disproportionate numbers of deaths compared with our cousin boroughs.
The inept political decision by decision-makers who cannot fathom the physical and mental impact of poverty has cast the shadow of universal credit and low pay on an entire generation of people already toiling with decades of structural inequalities, the most defenceless, and inflicted on them an unfair system leading to a fundamentally unequal divide. Yes, we have to balance the budget, but we must also strive for an equal and humane society.
The rainbow on the horizon, as many have said, is the Government’s rapid financial response to this emergency, which has proved that we can fund services in our uppermost priorities. We must ensure that the most vulnerable have their rightful place in contributing to a fairer and kinder society as we rethink the emerging economy post Covid-19.
Finally, I pay my respects to Colonel Tom Moore and Dabirul Islam Choudhury, both 100 years old—one raising millions of pounds; the other, inspired, raising tens of thousands for a better tomorrow. I wish the most reverend Primate and his wife, Margaret, a peaceful retirement, but one not too distant from the House.
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the most reverend Primate. This is the time to take bold action to tackle poverty and economic insecurity. A brutal light has been shone by the coronavirus on the underlying inequality in this country, where people in poor and deprived areas are twice as likely to die. Income insecurity, low pay, temporary work and poor housing have all taken their toll on health, as the recent Marmot report showed. A recovery of universal basic income must be the way forward as the country tries to emerge from this crisis. We need to begin to build a fairer, more resilient and good society and economy, as we did after the Second World War.
Welcome though the employment support schemes put in place by the Government are, they will soon come to an end without a further commitment to extend. With over 2 million people applying for universal credit in the last two months, delays in paying out cash mean that families have gone hungry. Now is the time to put in place a mechanism to distribute cash to everyone without delay, to provide an income floor that nobody falls below, and a springboard to recovery.
As the lockdown is eased, many sectors such as aviation and hospitality may never recover, and the jobs lost permanently will mean that people must be helped to retrain and reskill. Many are calling for temporary hardship schemes to cover the gaps that the self-employed must endure while they wait for funds, but a UBI would ensure no one had to rely on a food bank or face homelessness because of benefit sanctions or delays with universal credit. It would not replace wages but would instead help to boost them, especially for those front-line staff in the care sector, who have finally been recognised as key workers that society relies on to look after the most vulnerable.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, Covid has revealed further the underlying poverty in this country, as well as exacerbating the problem. There is no more obvious symptom of that poverty than food banks, demand for which was the greatest in 2019, before the health crisis started, so it is clear that when we look at current demand, it is considerably higher than it would have been without that base level.
Food banks are one of the biggest black marks against this country. It is self-evidently a social problem that a significant number of people cannot afford to put food on the table, because poverty itself is a social ill. It continues to surprise me how little food banks are raised as an urgent matter, perhaps because they have become too much an accepted part of the social landscape. Nevertheless, Philip Alston noted last year, as others have done, that they should not be a safety net. It is the Government’s job to provide at least that.
It is difficult to question the Government on this, since what we tend to hear about in reply is the public’s generosity and, since the health crisis, the departmental and charitable support for food banks—anything other than the current necessity for their existence. Can the Minister say whether the Government intend to take steps to make food banks unnecessary? I plead for a focused reply.
If you pull at food banks, inevitably you pull at so much else. Social problems are largely treated separately and compartmentalised, even as the evidence of a link between poverty and social problems such as mental health and domestic violence builds up. Yet that remains largely unaddressed by the Government.
In 2016, a Joseph Rowntree report on poverty estimated costs to the public purse of £78 billion per year, including healthcare, social care, schools, policing and children’s services. This is money that for social and financial reasons should be spent at the very beginning of the process, either through welfare or, better still, through a universal basic income, to provide the decent standards of living that all citizens have a right to and to avoid many of the social problems to which poverty leads.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the House is grateful to the most reverend Primate for this debate. It is timely because the Government are about to embark both on a spending review and a Budget which between them will shape the nation’s response to the pandemic, as well as setting out the Government’s response to the competing priorities we debate this afternoon.
On 12 March, the Prime Minister said, “I must level with the British public.” He was talking about the impact of the virus on the nation’s health. We now need the same frankness about its impact on the nation’s economy. Six months ago, a number of commitments were made in good faith by my party in its manifesto:
“We will not borrow to fund day-to-day spending … We promise not to raise the rates of income tax, National Insurance or VAT”,
and
“debt will be lower at the end of the Parliament”.
Those commitments are unsustainable, and we should say so now. In particular, leaving untouched the most progressive tax we have makes it impossible to respond to the compelling case made by the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.
I have two practical suggestions. First, we should abolish the universal winter fuel allowance, and roll the savings of up to £3 billion into social care, which has had a raw deal in recent settlements.
Secondly, we should introduce at least one new council tax band on top of band H. In a recent report, the IFS described council tax as
“increasingly out of date and arbitrary, and highly regressive with respect to property values. It is ripe for reform.”
It is absurd that the most valuable properties pay only three times as much tax as the least valuable. Ideally, there should be a revaluation, but that will not happen. However, a new, higher band would make the tax more progressive and bring in more resources for local government.
Clarity on the manifesto; replacing an untargeted benefit with help for social care; and a more progressive local tax. Those are the building blocks towards the fairer society advocated by the most reverend Primate.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
I strongly agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has just said. The last Labour Government introduced one higher band in respect of council tax. The noble Lord’s pro1posal for another higher band and using the resources for social care should be taken forward.
I, too, join the tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. As a spiritual and a pastoral leader, he has touched the lives of many of us, and his international work has also been seminal. Most of us will never forget the way he took Mugabe to task—particularly Zimbabweans.
On the big issue of youth poverty that he has raised and what we do about it in the coronavirus crisis, I shall follow my noble friend Lord Boateng and make a few concrete suggestions. I shall just rattle through them almost like tweets as we have so little time.
First, as my noble friend said, we should revisit the two-child rule. This relates to families who are on benefits and it goes to the heart of poverty. It is completely unjustifiable, and it targets further poverty on the poor, which is the opposite of what we should be doing.
Secondly, everyone in the education world knows that there is a big crisis at the moment over the provision of free school meals, because the voucher system is not working and the meals are not being provided in schools. We need a quick and targeted fix for this. The best proposal I can come up with about what we should do immediately is to double child benefit—which is to some to extent targeted because it is taxed away for the better off—for the duration of the crisis so that families have the money they need for schools meals rather than complicated school meal vouchers.
Thirdly, we need to give people the right to repeat years in school, because a lot of young people are losing out on education at the moment.
Fourthly, we need to give people the right to do additional years of further education, because a lot of young people are going to be unemployed or will not get the results they need. That should be tied into an urgent review of apprenticeships and the right of people to study in FE if they cannot get apprenticeships because the numbers are falling.
Finally, on university fees, it is clearly unconscionable that students should have to pay fees for substandard courses from this October. The Government should have either a reduced fee or no fee for next year.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the most reverend Primate on bringing this debate to us this afternoon. I shall make two points, the first looking at the impact of Covid-19 on the economic patterns experienced by different groups of workers and the second looking at the implications further afield on reaching sustainable development goal 16 on peace, justice and strong institutions.
Everyone’s health is at risk from the virus, which is causing workers’ lives to be altered across the country, some more than others depending on the work that they do. I reinforce the words of my noble friend Lady Tyler. The Resolution Foundation has identified four main groups of workers with similar experiences. Of these, key workers are the most exposed to harmful effects, as they are working in jobs where social distancing is very difficult. On the other hand, people working in shut-down sectors are most likely to be feeling the economic effects of the crisis. The other groups—those who can work from home and those who continue to go out to work—can continue with some sense of normality. Key workers and shut-down workers are suffering the most acute consequences, with lower-paid people, particularly the young and women, being the hardest hit. The virus does not discriminate between the rich and the poor, but the economic impact does. It is important for the Government to recognise the challenges and the sacrifices that some groups are more likely to be making than others.
Even before the devastating impact of Covid-19, only 18% of fragile states were on track to meet the sustainable development goal, and violence and conflict was on the rise. Mercy Corps will be debating this in a virtual discussion on 12 May—particularly the influence of weak governance, weak health systems and often significant displaced populations—in response to the virus. As Covid-19 spreads, the risk of violent conflict may increase, locally at first, and at multiple levels in the medium and long term.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I thank my good friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for securing this important and timely debate. I offer him my best wishes in what will be, I am sure, a busy retirement.
Covid-19 has brutally made us aware that the severity and likelihood of infection discriminates against the poor and disproportionately affects black and minority-ethnic groups, and, importantly, their children. Lower-income groups are more likely to suffer from a poor, unbalanced diet, which can result in obesity, heart and lung diseases, and, particularly among those of Asian origin, diabetes and kidney and liver diseases, and can ultimately impact their mental health.
The global pandemic has made us focus on the need to urgently redress gross inequalities. Both Christianity and Sikhism lay great stress on concern for the poor and a fairer distribution of resources. But, in our selfish rush for material prosperity, at the expense of the needs of the disadvantaged, we have ignored the important ethical imperatives that are necessary for a socially and economically healthy society. The pandemic is a timely reminder that, as both our religions teach, life has both spiritual and material dimensions. I hope that the Government will take the lead in resetting the balance.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I also congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York on securing this debate. I draw attention to my interests in the register.
I must start by mentioning that a basic income, an idea which has come up from time to time, has been trialled in Finland, where the trial was abandoned. It would be good to look at why that was before we go too far.
I want to talk about what I see as the real scandal: the perception that those right at the top end of the economy do not need to pay much in the way of tax. I read in today’s Times, for instance, that Deloitte has 669 partners in Britain, who earned an average of £882,000 each last year. In another, quite separate story, I read that the boss of Ocado was paid £59 million last year, and that the finance chief and the chief operating officer, somewhat more humbly, got only £14 million each—of course, the business recorded a loss of £214.5 million. When people read these mind-boggling figures they wonder where, at the bottom end, they are going to exist.
I am pleased that, when I was chair of the finance committee of the Reform Club, I managed to bring in the London living wage. It is still paid there. However, we need to look at how we can benefit people at the bottom of the scale and how we can get fair tax out of the people in the middle. When people see Sir Philip Green flying in from Monaco, or Richard Branson on his island in the West Indies, they are rightly very cynical. My message is that we need to get together with people, and internationally, to tackle the tax havens and the many ways in which it is possible to hide or move income. It is not tax evasion; it is tax avoidance, by transferring money to the most beneficial regime. In the same way, some companies transfer their rights to Luxembourg, and thereby reduce the amount of tax that they have to pay in the UK.
I therefore ask the Government to look at ways of co-ordinating international action with the OECD, the European Union and others, to close the tax havens in the Channel Islands, Monaco, Panama, the Virgin Islands and the like. We really must start to tackle these abuses, which I believe underscore the way in which people see unfairness in society. If we are to have a fair division of income, we have to start tackling those people who believe that they are above income tax law.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, our record in the UK on income inequality and poverty is not very good. We have a higher level of income inequality than most European countries; 30% of children still live in relative poverty; and one in nine of the workforce has little or no job security. Covid-19 is making this worse, as many noble Lords have outlined.
However, this is not just about income inequality. Another inequality has been thrown into stark relief by Covid: the lack of the basic human right of access to green open space. The public have fully recognised that their physical and mental health depend hugely on being able to access green open spaces, the countryside and nature, yet 2 million homes do not have a garden. The most affluent areas in this country have five times more public green space per person than the most deprived areas.
A key part of the post-war settlement was a visionary programme to guarantee access to open space and nature in the form of our much-loved national parks system. I urge the Government to now follow that lead to ensure a fair and inclusive recovery that also delivers green equity—a nature recovery network both urban and rural to ensure that all our citizens have a right of access to green open space in the future.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, this crisis has made us reflect on what matters to us and on who matters to us—the people we love and cannot be with, but also the strangers on whose courage, compassion and service we as a country have depended literally for our survival. We frequently express our gratitude to these people in words. After this, we need to express it in deeds, in reality, in changes and in a fairer system of income and taxation. However, we also owe it to the generations that come after us to be fairer. When we rebuild our economy, we need to do so in a way that is sustainable. We need to look at a greener future, with an economy that does not pollute or endanger the future of the world in the same way.
Today, the Committee on Climate Change has written to the Prime Minister setting out six key principles for rebuilding an economy that is stronger, cleaner and more resilient for the future—not a hair-shirt economy but one from which we can benefit as a community. Will the Minister assure me today that those recommendations will be taken very seriously?
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, this pandemic has hit the less well-off the hardest, both in terms of the mortality rates and in the suffering of those affected by the lockdown. In the depth of this crisis, we have an opportunity to sweep away vested interest and entrenched ways that have got in the way of fairness and simplicity and to come out of it with a system that is much better for the less well-off and much fairer for us as a society. As my noble friend Lord Balfe said, it is simply ridiculous that we should continue to allow people who earn vast sums of money to get away with not making a proper contribution to the national income, whether they be individuals, corporations such as Google or Chinese traders who avoid paying VAT.
The inefficiencies of the system, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, also need attention. There is a great opportunity here to make things better by taking advantage of the situation which we have, unfortunately, been presented with. I do not know whether the most reverend Primate’s suggestion of upping the living wage or of a universal basic income would work best, but something must be done to make sure that we no longer have a society in which a substantial number of people live below poverty levels. It simply will not do.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate for tabling this debate, and for citing in his opening remarks the speech of Sir Winston Churchill introducing the Trade Boards Act 1909. A wealth of academic research shows that greater even than the effect of progressive taxation and minimum wage legislation on diminishing inequality is the impact of extensive collective bargaining. That is what marks out the more egalitarian economies of Scandinavia.
From 1909, we had extensive collective bargaining in this country. By 1979, at the end of the most egalitarian decade in British history, when 65% of GDP was in the form of wages, 82% of British workers were covered by a collective agreement. Today, collective bargaining coverage is less than 25%. Consequentially, the wage share of GDP has fallen to less than 50%. Workers have lost their collective voice in determining their terms and conditions, as the current crisis has emphasised.
I urge the Government to take a leaf out of Winston Churchill’s book and, in discussion with the TUC, CBI and experts, reintroduce compulsory sectoral collective bargaining as Churchill did in the Trade Boards Act 1909. The wages councils, as the trade boards were subsequently renamed, were abolished in 1993 and voluntary sectoral agreements terminated and undermined in both public and private spheres. To cope with the transformation needed after this crisis, we need to bring them back to life, as we did to deal with previous crises: after the First World War, in the 1930s after the crash, and during the Second World War.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, income inequality is accompanied by a lack of security and inequalities in health and longevity. Keeping the poorest poor is not good value for society or the state. The financial crisis slightly levelled incomes but left millennials comparatively disadvantaged, and now they are the ones most likely to have younger children, hit by school closures and cut off from grandparental help.
Indices now show that inequality is back on the rise, and the pandemic has already created its own economic inequalities—those who can work and those who cannot, those qualifying for grants or furlough payments and those who are not, those who will have jobs to return to and those who will not.
In January, a World Economic Forum report indicated that increasing social mobility—a key driver of income inequality—could benefit the UK economy by $130 billion by 2030. Tell me a better way to help recovery.
We can use what we have learned in lockdown for good. The “new normal” should treasure the positives, keep them and reinforce them. Work from home has been enabled for so many more people—use that to enable a more sustainable work/life balance, cut transport, and open more jobs to the disabled, carers and other people who have not been given the chance to work entirely from home.
We can have a green recovery, a caring recovery, a better shared recovery—and find that it pays its way. Will the Government seize that opportunity?
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the CBI, of which I am vice-president, was engaged in a project on structural inequality in the UK last year, culminating in the report Structurally Unsound in 2019. It noted that being from an ethnic minority background and suffering health issues can compound the inequality that you suffer.
I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for his stellar service in his amazing career and I wish him a wonderful retirement. We shall miss him.
At the University of Birmingham, where I am chancellor, Karen Rowlingson, professor of social policy, mentioned that those with low incomes are more likely to suffer from Covid-19 and indeed, sadly, die from the virus. They are also more likely to see a negative impact on their incomes from lockdown than other groups in any recession that may come. If we can find ways to reduce income inequality, that will be crucial.
The City of Boston government has instituted a Covid-19 health inequities task force. Does the Minister think it might be a good idea for the UK Government to follow suit?
According to the IFS, after stripping out the role of age and geography, Bangladeshi hospital fatalities are twice those of the white British group, Pakistani deaths 2.9 times as high, and black African deaths 3.7 times as high. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, mentioned, key workers are at a higher risk of infection through the jobs that they do, and for carers the average wage is £8.19 an hour.
The Government have introduced a range of excellent measures—the job retention scheme, changing the rules for statutory sick pay, self-employment support—yet despite that almost 2 million people are now claiming universal credit, jobseeker’s allowance and employment support allowance. This is only going to get worse.
In coming out of the lockdown, the process of opening up should be mindful of inequalities. Will the Minister let us know whether the furloughing will be phased out and part-time working allowed?
The director-general of the CBI, Carolyn Fairbairn, said that when coming out of the lockdown perhaps most important of all is building back better. However difficult, the crisis has afforded us the chance to be radical. Tackling inequality must be paramount.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, we are grateful to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for this debate. This crisis has demonstrated why it is more critical than ever to work with policymakers, educators and employers to make sure that we put the sustainable building blocks in place to enable economic mobility as well as ensure that the safety nets required for those who need the state to intervene are properly protected.
Many are facing incredibly difficult and uncertain times. The lives of poor working families were already stretched to provide and they were just managing before the crisis. They are now incredibly bleak. There is plenty of evidence available showing that life outcomes are hugely dependent on the tools that enable you to develop, the environment in which you are born, and access to nutrition and education.
These past weeks have seen the best in communities stepping up and helping others, and I hope that will not be lost in the months that follow when we slowly return to a form of normal. However, the solutions must go beyond depending on communities stepping up. Policymakers must work on how the cycles of long-term poverty can be broken. This deeply complex question requires not just short-term financial interventions but a rethink of what community and society mean. How do local businesses once again step up to work with educational institutions, and how do local authorities, with the extra funding that they have received during the crisis, demonstrate sustainable co-ordinated neighbourhoods?
During the last few weeks we have seen price hikes on many products, and no doubt we will see many more. What work is being done with companies, banks and retailers to ensure that already indebted people do not face further financial uncertainty as they try to manage a return to normality? Will my noble friend ensure that help and support is available that is accessible to everyone?
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I wish the most reverend Primate very well for the future and thank him for his outstanding service to date.
Inequality has widened since the 1980s. Some have argued that it has been inevitable, but it is not. There are other reasons, but it is in part a result of the decline of collective bargaining, as my noble friend Lord Hendy argued. Collective bargaining needs a boost; Stanley Baldwin did it in the 1920s and 1930s. That would do quite a lot to end the self-servicing ethos that lurks in the corners of too many boardrooms.
We know that more equal societies do better on a range of issues, including education and health, to pick out two. They are also doing better with the virus, which is disproportionately affecting the UK’s poor, as others have argued. This must not be repeated in the post-Covid world. We have a chance to do something about that.
I have a couple of questions. Will the Government agree to the TUC proposal to establish a national economic and social council to forge a national strategy on equality and recovery in a way that is fair to all sections of the community? Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Wood suggested, will the Government consider a one-off solidarity tax, including on wealth, to fund job creation and the NHS, and perhaps even bite into some of the debts that we have recently been running up at a tremendous rate?
This week, as we commemorate the spirit of VE Day, can we recover that kind of spirit as we go forward to tackle our problems and let the broadest shoulders carry the heaviest burden?
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the most reverend Primate for initiating this important debate. In doing so, I wish him well in his retirement years and thank him for his service to both this House and the country.
Inequality has risen steeply since the 1980s. The Covid-19 virus appears to have the heaviest impact on the lives of people living in deprivation or facing difficult socioeconomic circumstances. Those working in retail, industrial jobs, transport or tourism—as it mainly is in my area—are far less likely to have working from home as an option. Indeed, Richmondshire, the district in which I live, has been found to be the most at-risk area in England, with a prediction of 35% of jobs likely to be affected by a prolonged shutdown. We are a tourism-reliant area. No tourists and no money circulating in the local economy equals no jobs. The predicted 15% unemployment that we will sustain will have a devastating economic impact on us. We have outstanding assets in our county, but we also have great need: in our skills gap, which needs improving; in our low-wage economy; and in our poor connectivity with many of our deeply rural and coastal areas, which rely on better broadband. I do not have time to mention poor public transport or the need to invest more in education and encourage apprenticeships.
We will need a new, sustainable economic strategy. We must never again assume that we are safe from a pandemic virus, so we must ensure income protection for everyone now. If we did not appreciate it before, we now know the importance of key workers in all our communities. A universal basic level of income, funded by the state, must now be considered, with proper support for those with disabilities or frailties. Investing in low-carbon technologies, small-scale renewables, energy and fuel efficiency is now a matter of urgency. We as a country have some very difficult decisions to make. Let us hope that we make the right ones.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for securing this debate.
My focus this afternoon is on ethnic minorities. Stark analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies illustrates the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on ethnic minorities and warns that some ethnic groups look more likely to suffer economically from the lockdown. The harsh realities of long and entrenched inequalities faced by ethnic minorities are all too evident. Ethnic minorities are more likely to be in insecure and low-paid work and are more likely to be unemployed. Ethnic minority staff in the health service are more likely to be on the front line, less likely to progress at work and more likely to be disciplined. All these factors put them at greater risk. While genetics and so-called cultural factors have been mooted as possible reasons, they must not mask the fact that persistent and long-standing social and economic inequalities lead to poor health outcomes and that racial discrimination is a factor.
A study last year by the Centre of Social Investigation at Nuffield College, University of Oxford, found shocking racial discrimination in the labour market at levels unchanged since the late 1960s. The Runnymede Trust’s latest report, The Colour of Money, shows that racial discrimination, like poverty, is a determinant of economic inequality. Runnymede’s other report, The State of the Nation, paints a very grim picture of disparities.
As a former director of the Runnymede Trust, some 36 years ago, it pains me to say that after nearly four decades the situation is not much better. For too long we have neglected to tackle discrimination and unfair institutional practices. In the last decade we have focused more on cultural factors and promotion of diversity, and not enough on racial discrimination and economic inequalities. This is not a binary choice. If we neglect racial discrimination and economic inequalities, disparities will persist. Building a resilient and sustainable society will remain a dream.
Deep-rooted problems require not just talk but strong action and policies pursued with determination and conviction. Can the Minister please tell the House what action the Government are planning to tackle persistent racial discrimination and consequent economic inequalities, which have been laid bare by this pandemic?
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the most reverend Primate and wish him well for his retirement. Of course, income is not the only determinant of individual well-being and there will always be richer and poorer in every society, but a vital social and moral issue for the aftermath of this crisis is to see a greater contribution from the better-off to help lower-income groups and alleviate poverty. I will focus on three issues: the role of monetary policy, debt and fiscal policy in addressing income inequality.
Monetary policy’s quantitative easing boosted the assets of wealthiest groups and asset owners while increasing housing costs for the less well-off and younger citizens. As a result, households have taken on extra debt for life’s essentials, thus exacerbating income and wealth inequality.
Rising debt levels were based on expectations of ongoing employment that have been frustrated by the crisis. Will my noble friend the Minister ask his department to look into ways in which the socially damaging side-effects of QE can be mitigated by policies to redistribute wealth and income windfalls?
The crisis will see millions more people relying on state support. This requires not simply increased tax rates but a wider tax base. The offshore-based entities that have made massive windfall profits during this crisis—from so much business moving online, for example—must pay a fair share of the support for our population. Taxation of turnover in UK markets, rather than profits that can be moved outside this jurisdiction, and more progressive property taxation—as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham—are just two examples. I hope that this crisis will lead us to a more equal society.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I join others in wishing the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York a happy and very well-deserved retirement. I declare an interest as chair of the National Housing Federation, the voice of affordable housing in England.
People need good, affordable homes to sustain greater income equality. The ONS has shown that income inequality is increasing. A significant factor is the cost of living, along with income instability and insecurity. Housing costs are a substantial proportion of living costs, sometimes more than 50% of monthly income if you rent in the private sector.
Even prior to the crisis, many individuals and families across the UK had always struggled to meet everyday living costs. With thousands of people losing their jobs as a result of the pandemic, this situation will get worse. The Government have introduced a job retention scheme and increases to universal credit to provide much-needed support, and I welcome these, but some gaps remain in helping people meet their housing costs. The uplift in universal credit or the local housing allowance will have no effect on some families already claiming benefits, because they are caught by the house- hold benefit cap. It is an arbitrary cap that further undermines families who are already struggling, with schools closed and no childcare to allow them to start work. Parents—particularly single parents—are struggling to get jobs. Will the Minister consider the need to suspend the housing benefit cap? Can he tell us what monitoring the Government are doing and how families affected by the cap are coping during this crisis?
As we rebuild from this pandemic, investment in affordable and social housing would not only reduce the cost of living for many more families in low-paid and unstable work but enable the Government to move away from subsidising unaffordable rents with the welfare system.
The ability of many families to bounce back quickly from this crisis will depend on the changes we make now to reduce the amount people spend on one of life’s basic necessities: somewhere safe and secure to live. Can the Government say whether they will take the first step by significantly investing in affordable housing?
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I hope that everyone now sees that we need to introduce policies that better balance what is good for “me” with what is best for “us”—the aspiration for the common good as opposed to only individual advancement. The cynic in me thinks it will not be a nanosecond before people forget their gratitude to those on the front line—before they vote for a party that offers tax cuts rather than tax rises to pay those in care homes and other front-line jobs a better rate of pay.
It is both the Government and we the people who need to change: we shop on credit, we drink, we numb ourselves by sitting in front of one screen or another. Church attendance is dropping and teachers’ authority is diminishing. We have had the scandal of MPs’ expenses, banks defrauding us, the Catholic Church and paedophiles, and sportspeople cheating. The media feed the frenzy of this downward spiral, cataloguing the cataclysm. Governments lie and cheat. This really has been a decline and fall.
We should be looking at policies to reduce stress and inequality, with less emphasis on status and more on co-operation and friendship. Status is based on pecking order, coercion and privileged access to scarce resources, while friendship is based on a more egalitarian basis of social obligations and reciprocity.
In the grand sweep of policy, there are obviously big picture items—tackling poverty, reducing social exclusion, increasing income equality, cutting crime, building more homes and saving our planet with radical action, individually and with policies. We all—Governments and the people—have a responsibility for behaviour change. This is social liberalism.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, we are most grateful to the most reverend Primate for his tremendous life example. I wish him well in the future. This is also a moment to be grateful for the welfare state, for the furlough support scheme, for food banks and the support of good neighbours—grateful for an infrastructure that protects people from the worst extremes.
I will focus on one particular area: the absence of savings among people in the United Kingdom. According to information received, savings levels are roughly half what they were 10 years ago. People on average are saving less every year than they might have done previously. Some 53% of those aged between 18 and 35 have no savings at all, and for the average person in the population, one in three has savings of less than £1,500. When a big crisis hits, such as coronavirus, people have little to fall back on. We have developed not a savings culture, but a capital expenditure culture and a commercial culture.
I have benefited from the experience of being an ambassador for Tearfund. Just a year ago, I went to see how 400,000 women in Ethiopia had saved nearly $30 million between them by putting their 2ps together. That is like the Grameen Bank model. It is now working in New York; it could work in London. What will the Government do to encourage saving clubs along the pattern of the Grameen Bank? It is successful in Bangladesh and in the USA; it could be successful in the UK. Also, what will the Government do to develop a savings culture so that people can better protect themselves, even with the little they have, as long as they also look to dependency on the state, quite rightly, and the support of good neighbours?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I join with others in thanking the most reverend Primate for his service to the House and to the country. His excellent speech caps a career spent campaigning for greater equality in income, notably the living wage. His time has surely come. I declare an interest as a former chair of StepChange, a debt charity, and I would like to make two points.
First, we are seeing a welcome attempt by the Government to mitigate the supply shock being caused by Covid-19. Keeping sufficient liquidity in the economy to ensure that companies can survive and hold jobs open is crucial. But as the IPPR reported today, once the immediate crisis is over, the economy will be scarred and we will need a broad-based stimulus to drive up demand, reduce risk and support the creation of high quality jobs—particularly, as other noble Lords have said, for young people about to enter the job market. Can the Minister confirm that plans for this are under way?
Secondly, the figures show that the Government need most urgently to support the debt charities that are working with those who are suffering because of unmanageable debt. ONS figures show that 8.6 million people have experienced reduced income as a result of the coronavirus crisis, while Citizens Advice has reported that over 13 million people have already been unable to pay or expect to miss at least one bill, and there has been an 81% increase in the use of food banks.
The Government should lead by example by taking measures to reduce the impact on households which are falling behind on bills. These could include bringing forward the statutory breathing space, temporarily suspending the rule that people become liable for their full council tax bill if they miss one payment, temporarily halting all bailiff activity and agreeing with the proposal from Citizens Advice for better protection for renters.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
With apologies for the difficulty in hearing the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Janke.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate for securing this important debate today which provides an opportunity to highlight the growing inequality of income and subsequent disadvantage to many people, as he has done for so long throughout his career. It is shocking for British people to learn that in the 21st century, 14 million people are living in poverty and 4 million of them are children. I also pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby for her eloquent speech and the points she made from her experience of working with and protecting children.
It is well documented that policies over the recent years have not furthered the cause of equality—rather, they have widened the gap between the rich and the poor, as the most reverend Primate said in his speech. For most disadvantaged people, there has been a systematic reduction in, and removal of, vital services and rights, as so many noble Lords have said. With the massive and unprecedented cuts to local authorities, vital services have virtually disappeared, services on which the poor depend. Changes to benefits have removed any effective safety net for those who experience catastrophic events. The UK has the fifth largest economy in the world and is a leading centre of global finance, yet one-fifth of the population—14 million people—are living in poverty, with 4 million of them below the poverty line. The current pandemic emergency has laid bare the shocking shortfalls in our woefully inadequate social safety net.
We have heard from noble Lords today about the importance of tackling these issues, and the post-Covid recovery is going to be of crucial importance to the least well off in this country. We have heard about the importance of social insurance based on progressive taxation, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. This would give rise to a new society that would spring up, as the most reverend Primate has said. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, highlighted the potential for massive unemployment and the need for a form of job guarantee scheme, while my noble friends Lady Kramer and Lord Bruce talked about the minimum basic income policy. My noble friend Lady Randerson highlighted the importance of investment in education and infrastructure, as well as the importance of supporting charities on which so many depend, a key point made by the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
We have also heard about the need to learn from the emergency, particularly from the care and kindness shown by people in our own communities and from the values of empathy and service that have been shown. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, highlighted this. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of the importance of affirming the dignity and worth of all. The noble Baroness, Lady Healy, highlighted the fact that key workers, often in low-paid and insecure jobs, are of vital importance, and spoke of the need for an income floor.
I also want to highlight the issue of health and the impact of poverty on health. The Marmot report produced in February this year—
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, we seem to be having connection problems with the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. I call the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for introducing this debate and for his service to the country and the House of Lords. I also welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby—my hometown—and look forward to her future contributions after such a good maiden speech.
It has been an interesting debate, wide-ranging and touching on many points. I will try to give a personal perspective on inequality, which is about so much more than income. When I was young—I was born in 1943—we were poor. But my father had secure employment as a porter in the National Health Service. We had a council house, with security of tenure. We had controlled rents. In summary, we lived poor but in no fear. Today’s working poor are the very opposite. They have low incomes, employment insecurity, housing insecurity—frequently because they do not have security of tenure—and escalating housing costs in the private sector. They have lived over the last 10 years with declining public services on which they disproportionately depend.
The working poor live in fear, a fear that most of us in this House—there may be exceptions—cannot begin to imagine. When things go wrong, they go very wrong. If people are in the wrong part of the economy—including large parts of the care and hospitality sectors—when things go wrong, as Covid has illustrated, they go catastrophically wrong.
However, there are other features of inequality which we must not ignore. The most obvious of these is the inequality of capital and asset wealth. This is where housing, for some, instead of being a problem, is the opposite. My own house is probably now worth, in real terms, two or three times what I paid for it, without anything having been done by me to contribute to that appreciation. Housing ownership exacerbates inequality in a number of ways, including in retirement. The working poor are likely still to be in insecure rented accommodation when they retire; the affluent will by then almost always own their own house and their retirement will therefore be that much more comfortable. The inequality of capital wealth flows through to subsequent generations through inheritance. We must not forget also that there are inequalities through responsibility, where carers look after their young and old, as well as inequalities in standards of work and in relation to work satisfaction.
Poverty is wrong. Poverty in all its forms is unfair and uncaring. It creates a society that is unfair and uncaring. This is in income, housing, security and fear. In my experience, high pay is unnecessary. Most high pay depends on bonuses. Bonuses pervert behaviour and we know that we get some pretty perverted behaviour as a result of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, noted.
The economic and social effects of Covid-19 will take many years to run through. Instead of seeing these as a threat, we must see them as an opportunity—as some have said, a Beveridge moment. We must try to get a better understanding of our society and of inequality and its effects. I believe that a better understanding will lead us to a more equal society, a society more at ease with itself, with a more holistic understanding of value, not simply of wealth.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York on his valedictory speech in this House. I echo the many tributes to him that we have heard today. We thank him for 15 years of service as the Archbishop of York and recognise his valuable work across his career, speaking out against authoritarian regimes and championing diversity, the environment and a range of social causes. I know noble Lords will join me in wishing him a very happy and well-earned retirement from his office. I draw particular attention to his work as chair of the Living Wage Commission, where he has rightly championed the need to end low pay, an ambition this Government share. In this role, in his career and today in this House, the most reverend Primate has chosen to highlight the important issue of inequality in our society.
Because of the limited time available and the large number of speakers, I may not be able to address each individual’s points, but I hope to cover the bulk of the issues. I shall begin with income inequality, the main subject of the debate. The Government take inequality very seriously. We are committed to improving the living standards of all in our society. I am pleased to report that in the latest data available, income inequality was lower than it was in 2010. However, it is striking how little overall inequality has changed over the past 20 years, given the efforts of all Governments—Conservative, Labour and coalition. This shows just what a challenge it is to shift. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that, whatever the overall statistics on inequality tell us, as noble Lords have highlighted, there are clearly groups in our society struggling to make ends meet.
It is right to consider how government policy as a whole impacts upon people’s lives and incomes. While the world has changed dramatically since the Spring Budget, Treasury modelling published at that time demonstrated that this Government are supporting the poorest in our society, showing that the poorest 60% of households receive more in public spending than they contribute in tax. For pensioners, the absolute poverty rate has fallen since 2010. It is also right that those with the broadest shoulders in society take their fair share of the burden. The top 1% of taxpayers are estimated to have paid over 29% of all income tax in 2018-19. Their contribution has increased since 2010-11, when it was 25% of the overall burden. I respectfully point out to noble Lords that the money has to come from somewhere, and they are doing their bit.
We know that work is key to improving people’s living standards and quality of life, providing more than just financial rewards—a sense of social glue, connection, well-being and aspiration. The Government have a strong track record on work, with the statistics for the three months to February 2020 showing a record high employment rate. Of course, we have seen significant events unfold since February, and I will turn shortly to the action the Government have taken to protect jobs in recent months. I reassure the most reverend Primate that work continues, and we have set an ambitious target for the national living wage, building on the progress so far. Supported by the national living wage, the lowest paid, defined here as full-time workers in the fifth percentile, saw their wages grow by 11% above inflation between April 2015 and April 2019. This is higher than at any point across the earnings distribution.
The Government have also confirmed an ambitious target for the national living wage to reach two-thirds of median earnings by 2024, if economic conditions allow. Since the national living wage was introduced in 2016, it has delivered the fastest pay rise for the lowest paid in 20 years. I accept that this may not go far enough for some noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Boateng and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham—who would like to see a universal basic income, but I believe that this is solid progress.
For those who need it, the welfare system provides a strong safety net. Before the current response to Covid-19, the Government were continuing to spend more than £220 billion on the benefits system, including an additional £1.7 billion a year on universal credit, increasing by £1,000 the amount that 2.4 million households could earn each year before their universal credit begins to be tapered.
Coronavirus has been one of the biggest crises that this country has faced in 80 years. The latest figures show that over 29,000 people have tragically died in the UK. At this time, the Government are rightly focused on saving lives. Our science-led action plan aims to slow the spread of coronavirus so that fewer people need hospital treatment at any one time, protecting the NHS’s ability to cope. That is why the Government have announced unprecedented support for public services, individuals and businesses to protect against the current economic emergency. We will protect, as far as possible, people’s jobs and incomes. In 2018-19, income inequality was lower than in 2009-10. In 2020-21, households in the lowest income decile will receive more than £4 in public spending for every £1 they pay in tax.
We are ensuring that the public sector has the funds it needs. The coronavirus emergency response fund will provide more than £14 billion to public services, including the NHS and local authorities. This builds on the £5 billion fund announced at the Budget and includes nearly £2 billion for the devolved Administrations. On top of this, we have announced a package to help individuals affected by the crisis. This includes the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme to help firms keep millions of people in employment. As at 3 May, 800,000 employers had claimed £8 billion to help protect 6.3 million furloughed jobs. To support those on low incomes through the outbreak, we have also announced a package of temporary welfare measures. This includes a £20 per week increase to the universal credit standard allowance and working tax credit basic element. We have increased the local housing allowance rate so that it covers the cheapest third of all local rents, and we have extended statutory sick pay to self-isolators and those in their households.
We know that, for some, this period will be more difficult than for others. We are making every effort to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected. Our shielding package is in place to safeguard over 2 million people in England with the most serious under- lying health conditions. To answer my noble friend Lord Caithness, we have provided assistance to some 325,000 people, who have received predominantly food supplies in the last seven days. On the broader question of whether a trade deal will reduce the quality of food coming into this country, there has to be a balance between keeping food affordable for people such as those mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, to ensure that they are able to eat healthily, while not undermining in any way the quality of the food we eat.
We have worked with local authorities and homelessness charities to offer safe accommodation to over 90% of rough sleepers, either on the streets or in communal shelters, who were known to local authorities at the start of this crisis. In addition to the wider package of support for English local authorities, we have provided £3.2 million specifically to meet the cost of accommodating rough sleepers with Covid-19 who needed to self-isolate. This is on top of the £492 million already committed to address homelessness and rough sleeping in 2020-21. Public Health England has also published guidance for those working in hostels and day centres. We absolutely understand that local authorities are under considerable pressure, both to continue providing essential services and to respond to the challenges of Covid-19 during these difficult times. This is why we have provided an additional £3.2 billion for local authorities, as well as further measures to aid their cash flow.
Now, more than ever, charities and those who work and volunteer for them are providing essential services to support the most vulnerable. We are supporting them with a £750 million package, including funding for hospices, St John Ambulance, Citizens Advice and charities supporting vulnerable children, victims of domestic abuse and disabled people. As well as this, the Government have pledged to match whatever the public donate to the BBC’s “Big Night In” campaign with the same amount to support further charities.
I will now try to pick up on the individual points raised by noble Lords. To save time, I will not mention everyone by name. A number of noble Lords asked about furlough extensions. I can confirm that the Chancellor has made it clear that there will be no cliff edge to the job retention scheme. The Government are working at pace to come up with the most effective way to wind down the scheme and ease people back into work in a measured way. We will ensure that the approach is coherent, with any necessary non-pharmaceutical interventions to protect public health, while considering the status of the economy, the scheme’s affordability and the need for certainty for employers and employees.
A number of noble Lords asked about rents and protection for tenants, particularly vulnerable ones. The Coronavirus Act required that landlords would be unable to start proceedings to evict tenants for at least a three-month period. We have targeted support at lower-income households to provide financial support to pay rent. Universal credit provides support for housing costs; we have increased the amount available to ensure that the lowest third of local rents will be covered in full.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked about the longer term and restoring a fiscal balance to the economy. As he will know, we have spent the last 10 years bringing borrowing and debt under control. This has ensured that our finances were well placed to deal with some of this crisis. We expect the spike in borrowing to be temporary; under the OBR scenario, borrowing is expected to fall back reasonably quickly in 2021-22 as temporary policy costs end and the economy starts to recover. By the end of the scenario horizon, the OBR expects borrowing to have returned to close to the Budget forecast.
The Government are currently considering options to fund social care, which would consider the financial impact on taxpayers as a whole, along with competing demands on taxpayers’ money from other public services and how to fund reform on a sustainable balance. All views, solutions and concerns are being considered as part of that process; we are absolutely looking at the longer term.
The most reverend Primate asked about the real living wage. As I have mentioned, low-paid workers will benefit from the April 2020 increase in the national living wage. That represents an increase of over £930 for the annual earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage, equivalent to a total increase in annual earnings of more than £3,600 since its introduction in April 2016. The Government have also confirmed their target to push on, as I mentioned earlier, to reach two-thirds of median earnings by 2024 as long as economic conditions are secure. The Government are responsible for setting the legal minimum wage floors, which protect vulnerable low-paid workers. We commend employers who pay more when they can afford to do so. The Living Wage Foundation is clear that its measure is voluntary.
Regarding pay rises for key workers, they deserve to be properly rewarded for the work that they do. Last July the Government delivered a second year of above-inflation pay rises for almost 1 million public sector workers, in addition to the previously agreed multiyear pay deal for NHS non-medical staff, including nurses. More than 1 million NHS workers continue to benefit from the three-year “Agenda for change” pay deal. The reforms will see the starting salary for a newly qualified nurse rise to £24,900 in 2020-21, 12.5% higher than in 2017-18. The Government have also agreed temporary pay and pension packages for a number of public sector workforces, including the NHS, to increase system capacity and recognise their work tackling the Covid-19 outbreak.
We are determined to do everything we can to ensure that our social care workforce is safe, supported and truly valued. Supporting our workforce is one of the four pillars of our core action plan, published on 15 April. In March we provided local authorities with £1.6 billion of emergency funding which could be used to pay for additional costs we knew the sector would face. In April we announced a further £1.6 billion of emergency funding for local authorities.
A number of noble Lords raised universal basic income—UBI. There are, of course, fundamental problems with the realities of UBI. A flat rate of UBI would not take into account people’s circumstances and the additional needs and costs faced by some individuals. Therefore, it would not target support where it was most needed. The Government have therefore announced alternative measures to support people’s jobs and incomes, which can be delivered relatively quickly and effectively through existing benefits. At a time when the DWP and HMRC are experiencing unprecedented demand, the Government have to prioritise the safety and stability of the existing benefit and tax system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, raised sustainable public housing. The only way to stabilise and improve affordability over the long term is to build more houses in the right places. That is why this Government are committed to building at least 1 million more homes by the end of this Parliament, continuing the progress towards our target of delivering 300,000 additional homes a year, on average, by the mid-2020s. More than 241,000 additional homes were delivered in 2018-19, the highest level in the last 32 years, representing a 66% increase since 2009-10. Since 2010 we have increased housing supply by more than 1.5 million, including 460,000 affordable homes. We have helped more than 600,000 additional households purchase a home since spring 2010 through government-backed schemes, including Help to Buy and the right to buy.
Noble Lords raised free school meals. The Government are committed to ensuring that children who receive free school meals do not miss out. We have asked schools to work with their existing catering providers to continue to offer free school meals. Demand has been extremely high, but they are reaching families and we continue to work with our suppliers to improve the service. We thank schools, which we know are doing their best for parents and children while the system is upgraded. It is also worth pointing out that while we considered initially that a 20% occupancy of schools would be safe and reasonable during the crisis, we are seeing less than 2%, so there is the opportunity for more children to be in school, particularly children who are vulnerable, who were considered a priority area, along with the children of key workers, at the time.
Noble Lords raised child poverty and benefits. The Government’s official statistics on poverty for 2018-19 show that there was little change in overarching poverty rates between 2017-18 and 2018-19. Child poverty rates fell before housing costs, and the relative child poverty rate reduced by 2 percentage points and the absolute rate by 1 percentage point. Since 2010 there are 100,000 fewer children living in absolute poverty and the absolute child poverty rate has fallen by 2%.
On progressive taxation, as I said earlier, the top 1% of taxpayers are estimated to have paid over 29% of income tax in 2018-19. The poorest 60% of households receive more in public spending than they contribute in tax. The Government have already taken steps to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden, including reforming dividend taxation, reducing the amount of tax relief on pension savings that an individual can accumulate over their lifetime, and ending permanent non-domiciled status.
Between 2010 and 2015 we took 4 million people out of income tax altogether. Around 1.7 million people have been taken out of tax between 2015-16 and 2019-20. We cannot add those two figures together because one uses the RPI and the other the CPI, but it gives an indication of the work we have done and the priority we have focused on some of the lowest paid. The income tax personal allowance was £6,475 in 2010-11. That is rising to £12,500 in 2021. The basic rate—the lowest rate of income tax—was 20% in 2010 and has remained stable but it is now applying to fewer people.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of the environment. The Government continue to take our environmental responsibilities very seriously and are committed to meeting climate change and wider environmental targets. The Budget reinforced the UK’s strong track record in this area. Announcements included £640 million for tree planting and peatland restoration, over £1 billion for further support for ultra-low emission vehicles, at least doubling funding for energy innovation and tax measures to encourage greater energy efficiency and reduce plastic waste.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury asked about support for migrants. We are facing a rapidly evolving and unprecedented global health emergency and the Government are committed to doing whatever it takes to support people through this. We have announced a range of measures to ensure that people can stay safe and many of these are available to those with a no recourse to public funds condition, such as the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, the Self-employment Income Support Scheme, protections from eviction for renters and a mortgage holiday for those who need it. Statutory sick pay and some contributory-based benefits are not classed as public funds, so are also available to all. Local authorities may also provide basic safety net support if it is established that there is a genuine care need that does not arise solely from destitution, for example when there are community care needs.
I am running out of time, but what I have tried to illustrate is that we are making a lot of interventions to support people, in particular the most vulnerable in society. The range of contributions we have heard today demonstrates what a broad and complex issue this is. I have highlighted some of our actions. I will finish by thanking noble Lords for their contributions, and especially the most reverend Primate for securing this valuable debate. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in once again giving him our very best wishes ahead of his forthcoming retirement.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their wonderful contributions to this debate. My time does not allow me to thank everybody, but all noble Lords gave wonderful, amazing contributions. I join other noble Lords in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby. It was a great pleasure for me to hear her maiden speech, having consecrated her as the first woman bishop and having introduced her into your Lordships’ House. I thank her very much for her wonderful contribution.
I would have loved to hear the Minister respond to the three suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, particularly the question of a new tax band above band H to increase the income for local authorities. That was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. The debate has been very clear that we have to do something about inequality in terms of many people’s income. It really requires a new way of looking at this and a new way of thinking carefully through what we are trying to do with the poor. In the end, they often end up with a double whammy and pay much higher costs for their well-being. Again, it is true—the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, gave a wonderful explanation of what often happens—that the poor tend to end up paying much. According to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, all of us really depend on one another and because of this, some of us can have much while others have very little.
I welcome the way the debate has gone. I just hope that we will be able to hear what has been said and then try to take some action, rather than leaving it and seeing what shape the future takes. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will soon come to a close, but I want to say that everything that has been said is important and I hope the Government will take it seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, called himself a Beveridge supporter and this a Beveridge moment. I remind your Lordships’ House that Beveridge said there were five giants: want, the need for an adequate income for all; disease, the need for access to healthcare; ignorance, the need for access to educational opportunities; squalor, the need for adequate housing; and idleness, the need for gainful employment. That is what he was calling for. As I see it, we need to be the sort of community that is moving forward with wonderful conviction and commitment to one another. We need to find a mechanism that some noble Lords called for.
As I see it, the debate was not about welfare alone but about well-being and a flourishing society founded on the principles of freedom, fellowship, service to God and neighbour and the rule of law. For me, these are the real firm foundations on which we can build a just, sustainable and compassionate society in which all can participate and flourish. For me, anything else is just sand. For the flourishing of a just and equitable society, the gap between those living in poverty and wealth must be reduced. Why is there a case for increasing income equality? In the light of the recent heath emergency, it is simply because it is a matter of justice, kindness and generosity. It is the right thing to do, and it is also desirable.
I love the wonderful story a rabbi told about his students who asked him, “When do you know light has come and night has ended?” They asked him, “Is it when you look at a tree and you see it is an apple tree and not a mango tree?” “No”, said the rabbi. “Is it when you can look in the distance and see that it is a sheep and not a dog?”. “No”, said the rabbi. Then they pressed him. “When do you know that light has come?”. He said, “If you look at the face of any woman or man and cannot see that they are your sister or your brother, it does not matter what time it is, it is still very night”. So today, may the day dawn when we deal with the whole question of the environment and an income that will sustain and support all our people.
I thank noble Lords for listening. I am looking forward to seeing the Government taking action on the many calls and concerns in the debate. It has been a real privilege to be part of it and make a contribution.
Motion agreed.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, Virtual Proceedings on the debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will now commence. This is a time-limited debate, and I know that Members will strictly observe the three-minute time limit. I will first call the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, in the usual way, the question will then be put, and I will then call each speaker on the list in turn. Each speaker’s microphone will be unmuted prior to speaking and returned to mute once their speech has finished.
Windrush Compensation Scheme
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Virtual Proceedings do consider the Windrush Compensation Scheme.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to be able to return and have a full debate on the Windrush compensation scheme. I know that many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Hamwee, were unable to participate at Second Reading of the Windrush Compensation Scheme (Expenditure) Bill on 21 April. I hope that today’s virtual debate gives them, and other noble Lords who wish to speak on this matter, the occasion to do so.
I hope that noble Lords will have received my letter of 30 April providing an update on the Windrush compensation scheme. As we discussed this matter two weeks ago, I will keep my opening remarks to a few important points to give noble Lords a chance to participate in this time-limited debate.
I place on record again the Government’s commitment to ensuring that members of the Windrush generation are properly compensated for the losses and impacts they suffered as a result of being unable to demonstrate their lawful status. That is why, in April 2019, we launched the Windrush compensation scheme, with the first payment made within four months of its operation. I take this opportunity to remind noble Lords that there is no cap on the amount of compensation an individual can receive, nor a cap on the total amount of compensation that we will pay out.
We are doing all we can to make payments to individuals as quickly as possible, and to raise awareness of the scheme. To date, the Home Office has attended or hosted over 100 engagement and outreach events and task force surgeries throughout the UK. The Home Office is working with community leaders on a digital engagement programme, to ensure that outreach can continue despite the current lockdown. The number of claims submitted to the scheme so far is, however, much lower than expected and we recognise that there is more to do.
In March, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced a £500,000 community fund to enable grass-roots organisations to promote the Windrush compensation scheme and the Windrush scheme. We are committed to working with members of the community to shape the principles of the fund and intend to work with stakeholders to co-design it. The Home Secretary also announced that we will launch a national communications campaign, which will build on existing communications activities to raise awareness of the schemes and ensure that people know how to apply. We recognise that no amount of money can undo the injustice that some members of the Windrush generation have faced. We are committed to tackling those wider injustices as well.
As the Home Secretary said on publication of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, despite the diverse and open nature of this country, too many people still feel that they may be treated differently because of who they are or where their parents came from. That is why we are launching an expanded cross-government Windrush working group, to develop programmes to improve the lives of those affected. That may be through employment support programmes, dedicated mental health support, and specialist education and training schemes. We will continue to listen to stakeholders as we take forward establishing this group, and we are committed to ensuring that the Home Office, and wider government, protects, supports and listens to every single part of the community it serves.
Members of the Windrush generation have given so much to this country, often working in the sectors at the forefront in the fight against Covid-19. I put on record again my gratitude to all those members of the Windrush generation, and their descendants, who are working tirelessly to tackle this dreadful virus. Many people in this country owe them their lives. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, noted at Second Reading of the Bill, it is extremely worrying that BAME individuals appear to account for a disproportionate percentage of those affected and who have sadly died during this pandemic.
On 22 April, the National Institute for Health Research and UK Research and Innovation published a highlight notice requesting research to understand emerging evidence of an association between ethnicity and Covid-19 incidence and adverse health outcomes, and to respond to concerns that health, care and other key workers who belong to BAME groups may be particularly at risk. This call is designed to complement and add to existing work already being done by academic groups and Public Health England, which is also looking at wider inequalities.
The Windrush compensation scheme is only one aspect of a broad range of matters to be discussed in relation to the Windrush generation and the challenges that they have faced. We know that there is more still to do, and we will work with every part of government to tackle inequality and ensure justice for the Windrush generation. I beg to move.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, the scandal surrounding the Windrush generation, leading to the subsequent report by Wendy Williams, and the unlawful removal of British residents to countries that they might have left as children, was first highlighted by the Guardian in 2017 and came to a head in 2018. The scandal saw the deportation of individuals to Caribbean countries, including many to Jamaica.
I was part of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we took evidence from individuals affected by the scandal. Some were remanded in detention centres, awaiting deportation. They talked about the effect of that on their mental health and about the separation from their families. All had lost their jobs and homes. The lack of documents affected all those who found themselves in this position. Many of these individuals arrived in this country as children, on a parent’s passport, and would not have had documents, or they travelled on a British passport before the country of origin gained independence.
The Government need to remember that the Windrush generation were invited here, after World War II, to rebuild the country. The jobs that were vacant were on the buses and railways, and in hospitals. People from the Caribbean who answered that invitation faced discrimination and racism from the start.
The scandal of the Windrush generation has been going on since the late 1990s and early 2000s. Many people who travelled to Jamaica, either on holiday or for the funeral of a family member, found themselves stopped at the airport and unable to return to the UK. Many died without having their cases looked at. The report also listed five cases, all giving different stories of their experiences, which I found upsetting to read. I can only imagine the distress that these individuals have gone through. We should do everything that we can to amend the mistake made against them. Wendy Williams’s report said that
“institutional amnesia and inadequate practice denied them their liberty. It denied them their freedom of movement. It denied them a normal life.”
In conclusion, Wendy Williams’s report made 30 recommendations. Will they all be accepted? Also, how can the Government avoid discriminating when making compensation payments to individuals while waiting for Royal Assent? Individual officers are still being asked to assess status, burden of proof and the amount that each recipient should receive. How can we monitor this and ensure that mistakes do not again cause the same distress which these individuals have gone through? In future, the Government should make sure that these concerns are heard as part of the lessons learned so that people’s rights cannot be taken away from them.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, in her response to Wendy Williams’ Windrush review, the Home Secretary said:
“we were all shocked to discover that they and their families were subject to such insensitive treatment by the very country they called home.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/3/20; col. 1154.]
Sadly, insensitive treatment is regarded by many as the Home Office’s stock-in-trade. It took a commendable series of articles and a book by journalist Amelia Gentleman—as she rightly remarked:
“The ability to feel outrage is a powerful tool.”—
to bring that to a wider public.
The Windrush scandal was not a mistake or some unfortunate one-off bureaucratic error. It was a direct result of a pledging war between the two main parties to cut the numbers of immigrants—in particular, Tory political promises to reduce net migration to an arbitrary target of tens of thousands and
“to create here in Britain a really hostile environment for illegal migration.”
The effect of the hostile environment policy was clearly racially discriminatory, but Ministers refused to listen to the chorus of warnings. Although stopping short of a full finding of institutional racism, Wendy Williams found
“an institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issue of race and the history of the Windrush generation”.
The scandal also displayed all the worst aspects of bureaucracy: complex laws that very few understood, coupled with historical amnesia; a “culture of disbelief” and refusal to listen to what people were saying; the distorting effect that targets can have; a cruel lack of humanity; misinformation, doublespeak and inaccessibility; the lumping together of different categories, in this case legal with illegal residents; sheer incompetence, such as in destroying vital files, poor record-keeping, absence of corporate memory and poor-quality decision-making; and resistance to legitimate criticism. Will we see not only compensation but real change? There is some hope that the frenzy of Brexit-fuelled anti-immigrant hysteria has waned, and there are indications of public appreciation of the positive value of immigration, not least in the NHS and care services.
One key test of the Government’s attitude will be the treatment of the 3 million EU nationals, but, like the Windrush generation, many of them have been asked for an unreasonable level of proof. In a welcome change of tune, Michael Gove told our EU committee yesterday that a physical status document might be considered. An appeal to the Home Office to change its habits of a lifetime might get little traction on the basis of sheer humanity and sensitivity, but in a world in which the UK will be competing for workers of all levels of skill it would be wise for it to ensure that its reputation for nastiness and incompetence does not continue to harm the national interest.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the opportunity for the House to discuss the issues raised by the Wendy Williams review and the Windrush compensation scheme, further to an initial debate about the Bill itself. I will press the Minister on one or two matters raised in that debate that did not receive a specific answer. We looked at the areas for which historical compensation can be paid. I raised the specific point about reputational damage to individuals, especially from the loss of their work or their removal from the country. Reputational damage should be a factor considered for compensation. Can the Minister reply on that matter?
The Minister also discussed briefly in her opening remarks the point about improving the lives of those directly affected. There were some examples of what that might mean, but very often a fundamental aspect of improving the lives of people who come from a Caribbean culture is to pay them due dignity and respect. I suggest that the Minister and the Government might seek to bring together an annual conference in the Palace of Westminster—not a perpetual conference of apology, but one of listening, heeding, supporting, enabling and empowering those who feel that their contributions might well have received some kind of financial return, but who, in effect, need to be respected, heard and listened to with greater dignity.
The particular questions raised by the specific issues referred to in Wendy Williams’ report cause us to ask the hard questions. Who was institutionally ignorant in the Home Office? Who was thoughtless? Was this simply down to political direction, as referred to in the previous speech, by Governments of both colours wanting to limit the amount of immigration, or was there some kind of systemic thoughtlessness within the structures and permanent operations of the Home Office?
We await the Home Secretary’s reply, which is permitted to be within six months of the publication of the report. Might the Minister advise us whether she can give a specific date when that reply, analysis and return will come from the Home Secretary? Could she also give some consideration to how the Home Office will in reality deal with this institutional ignorance? The only way to remove ignorance is to educate; the only way to remove thoughtlessness is to empathise. What specific actions of empathy and education has the Home Office undertaken to ensure that these aspects are removed?
I have one further point. Over time, those in power forgot about these people’s circumstances. If the Minister would allow it, could we put in place some way to make sure that we never forget—to bring them together, honour them, bring dignity to them and provide them with due respect?
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I thank the Minister for allowing this virtual debate. Almost two years ago, the Windrush scandal astounded this country. The hostile environment policy operated by the Home Office was shown to be discriminatory and damaging. It had neglected a critical principle that is foundational to my Christian faith: human dignity.
Process must support people. This needs to apply not only to our migration policy and departments, as clearly set out in the lessons learned review, but to the way we do what we have committed to do, such as the Windrush compensation scheme. From that standpoint, we need to evaluate how accessible the scheme is to those who are trying to rightfully claim underneath it, and that it is a process that honours their human dignity.
However, there are clearly indications that this is not presently the case. The Windrush compensation scheme was launched 12 months ago. Since then, figures show that only 35 people have been granted urgent and exceptional support payments totalling £46,795. The scheme is expected to pay out between £20 million and £30 million—in other words, the compensation offered thus far does not seem to reflect the scale of the scandal. Many victims have been adversely affected for years—for decades—suffering ill health, homelessness and mounting debt. Some, sadly, have passed way as a result of the scandal.
Not only does the speed at which the compensation is distributed not seem to honour the dignity of those affected but there is also the issue of accessibility. The compensation scheme application process should be reduced from its 18-page document, for which external help is so often required. It needs to create an easy, accessible document for survivors and community organisations. This would simply be in line with the best practice under the Equality Act.
Lastly, I highlight the fact that there is a significant lack of trust in the scheme, because the department that has been accusing victims for so long runs it. Serious consideration needs to be given to an external organisation managing the scheme, which would help in rightly building the confidence in what the scheme aims to deliver.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, this coronavirus pandemic has shown us who really matters in our country. Of course, we all immediately think of the NHS staff, but we would all be starving if we did not have tens of thousands of people stacking shelves and lorry drivers delivering vital supplies 24 hours per day. I pay tribute to them, as well as the dustbin men, farm labourers, cleaners, cashiers, sewing machinists, vets’ assistants, call centre staff and hosts of other low-paid workers who have been keeping us going in lockdown and getting our deliveries to us. These and other low-paid manual workers are the heroes of this pandemic. Many of them are doing exactly the same work that the Windrush generation came here to do.
The people who will not be missed are the rather vacuous celebrities and rapacious lawyers—but no doubt the lawyers will crawl out again to mount massive claims against the NHS and everyone else they can think of whom they perceive to have deep pockets. They have contributed nothing to help us get through this crisis but will be out in droves, ambulance chasing, when it is over. That is why I am pleased that they will not be part of the Windrush claims process.
Many of us could not be in the Chamber at Second Reading, but I was concerned at some noble Lords’ comments that lawyers should be permitted to submit claims or even get legal aid to do so. We all know that lawyers who work on a no-win no-fee basis will rip off the client, who gets left with a tiny award at the end of it. If they were to get legal aid for this, they would rip off the taxpayer.
Some noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, said that the form was too long and complicated, so I downloaded it to have a look. It is long but relatively simple, and claimants need to complete only the sections that relate to their individual circumstances. I think my noble friend the Minister has designed the compensation scheme and the forms to be as clear and simple as possible. For me, the telling point is that they were tested by the users, who found them satisfactory.
For those who want or need support to make a claim, the Home Office has funded Citizens Advice to provide free independent advice and support, and there will of course be the £500,000 fund for grass-roots organisations to promote the Windrush scheme and provide advice. In view of the scheme’s simplicity and the help available, there is no need for lawyers to get their noses in this trough on either moral or practical grounds, and I urge my noble friend the Minister not to budge on this.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I first thank the Government for tabling this Motion today, enabling a wide group of Members to take part in the debate on the Windrush scandal compensation scheme. Having only three minutes means that it is difficult, if not impossible, to get across all the points I want to make. I have agreed with the contributions made by noble Lords so far and am certain I will agree with those made during the rest of the debate.
I have a number of questions to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and I hope she can respond to them when she replies to the debate. If not, I look forward to receiving a written response copied to all Members of the House speaking in the debate.
Can the Minister set out the terms of the compensation offered to victims? By that, I mean the framework. Is this a full and final settlement? Can it be revisited? It would also be helpful if the Minister confirmed to the House that, if people have been deported, all the costs associated with their return to the UK will be borne by the Government without any question, and that this does not form any part of the compensation package itself.
Moving on to jobs that have been lost due to the actions of the Government, is the compensation received seeking to address that in all relevant cases, and will there be any action by the Government to help people find re-employment? Where people have lost their homes, they could have lost their tenancy. What action will the Government take to get victims back to the position they enjoyed in respect of their housing before they suffered this injustice? Finally, what are the oversight proposals to ensure that victims are treated properly and fairly and do not suffer further injustice?
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, in 2017 I was honoured to be asked by the Government to chair the Windrush Commemoration Committee, to create a Windrush monument in recognition of the contribution that Caribbean people have made to Britain. In 2022, the monument will be erected at Waterloo station, where thousands of West Indians like myself arrived in Britain before dispersing across the whole of the UK. However, the committee is finding it hard to make this a joyful experience, because of the Windrush scandal and the shame hanging over the country. This needs to be solved urgently.
Like many West Indians, I have dedicated my life to serving this country. We were brought up in the Caribbean to believe that we were British—part of the motherland—and taught at school to celebrate British history. In 1960, I was one of the lucky children who arrived in Britain with my own passport, but the Windrush scandal has shown that it could have been so different for me had I not had one.
Life during those early years in Britain was harsh, brutal and cruel. My whole family, all eight of us, lived in one room, as there was little accommodation available for Caribbean people. I saw those signs saying, “no Irish, no dogs, no coloureds”. I had people spit at me. Grown men lifted my skirt and said, “Where’s your tail, monkey?” I was not served in shops; I was even turned away from the church. These were the indignities that we had to suffer, with resilience and determination. We were made to feel as though we did not belong. We felt a sense of betrayal, as the general public knew nothing about us, but we were too proud to return or tell families back in the Caribbean about the hardship, discrimination and rejection we were facing. Besides, there was little money, because the jobs available were low paid. My mother had three jobs in a day to try to make ends meet.
All this meant that culturally, people from that generation did not go on holiday, travel abroad, register for a passport or take part in any national register. This partly explains why so many people did not have the necessary documents and became caught up in the Windrush scandal, facing unbelievable hostility with little compassion, consideration or cultural understanding, some dying due to the stress and trauma.
Thanks to much campaigning, the Windrush compensation scheme was meant to help correct the injustice, but little progress has been made. Minimal funds have been paid out and faith in the Home Office is at an all-time low. To move forward, trust in the Home Office needs to be restored, as it is still associated with the hostile environment, complicated forms and deportation flights. Trust is also needed in the appeals system, especially when cultural decisions are to be made, and in those in the Caribbean who are part of the scandal.
How does the Home Office intend to restore that trust? One suggestion is for the Government, in order to restore confidence, to establish an independent advisory group and chair, reporting directly to the Cabinet Office, on the implementation of all 30 vital recommendations of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review by Wendy Williams. The Windrush monument will be a way to define and celebrate black British history. Let it not be the Windrush scandal.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Lord Woolf? We cannot hear the noble and learned Lord; we will perhaps come back to him. Lord Sheikh.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, the Windrush scandal is, without doubt, one of the most unfortunate episodes in this country’s history. My family came to Britain as refugees from Uganda, so I understand how it feels to leave the only country you have ever known behind. To be told that you are not welcome in the country you thought was your home is one of the most painful experiences one can imagine.
When we arrived in Britain, we were given shelter and assistance by the Conservative Government led by Ted Heath. The treatment of the Windrush generation was the opposite. These people included veterans who had fought in both world wars for king and country but were later made to feel desperately unwelcome. They saw themselves as British, with their right to citizenship enshrined in law, but the treatment they received from some of their fellow Britons was less than welcoming. The new arrivals faced discrimination in employment and housing as well as socially. They were prey to vultures like Peter Rachman, who terrorised his Caribbean tenants with bouncers, dogs and impossible demands for rent. To have endured this treatment only to be told later that you have no right to remain is nothing short of scandalous. Not only the immigrants but their children have been badly treated.
I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s efforts to put right these grave injustices through the Windrush compensation scheme. It is vital that those who have suffered can seek redress and support as much as possible. Those in positions of authority must learn from past mistakes to ensure that they are not repeated in the future. The review by Wendy Williams forms an important part of this learning. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could inform your Lordships’ House as to what steps Her Majesty’s Government are taking to implement the findings of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review.
It is deeply regrettable that, to this day, we do not know how many people have been affected by this disaster. Many lost their jobs, were evicted, detained in migration centres, denied medical treatment, or may have been deported. Worst of all, we know that a number have passed away without being able to seek justice. I sincerely hope that the Windrush compensation scheme will go some way towards restoring trust and healing the wounds caused to victims and their loved ones.
The Deputy Speaker
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh. Do we now have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf? No? Then I call the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, before beginning my contribution today, I would like the House to note my entries on the register of interests.
Many years ago, at the start of my teaching career, I was employed by the Inner London Education Authority in several schools in the London Borough of Lambeth—Stockwell Manor, Beaufoy boys’ school and finally Priory Park School—now all amalgamated and changed. I did not realise that I would meet a chair of governors of Priory Park School many years later on these Benches: my noble friend Lord Boateng.
Each school had a multi-ethnic intake of pupils, mainly from Afro-Caribbean backgrounds; it was a wonderful experience for a Welsh valleys girl to engage with this wide variety of cultures. I was living in Brixton at the time, and this was indeed the heart of the Caribbean community in south London. Little did I realise then what problems would arise almost four decades later for the parents of those pupils and indeed for some of those youngsters themselves.
The compensation scheme has fallen short of expectations. British citizens have been wrongfully detained and deported, lost jobs and been prevented from returning home from abroad. By the Government’s own admission, they are continuing to fail the Windrush victims. The scheme is not well publicised. Many are frightened to claim the compensation through fear of the “hostile environment”, and I believe that, to date, only a very small percentage of claimants have received compensation.
The Government should provide funding for voluntary groups to assist claimants to apply for compensation. The investigative nature of the documentation requires a great deal of form filling, and it is not often possible by individuals as it involves HMRC, medical records and council records. So people are caught between situations as they try to find appropriate evidence and to avoid contact with the authorities for fear of being deported or detained. This fear has led to great problems in finding enough documentary evidence to support claims.
More than 12,000 people who were wrongly classified by the Home Office as illegal immigrants have now been given citizenship or some other form of documentation proving that they have, and always had, the right to live in the UK, but there are more than 3,700 outstanding cases with the Windrush taskforce. Those people who still await an outcome, in some cases for more than a year, have been left with great anxiety at a time when the Government should be doing everything they can to speed up and support the applications. Will the Minister say whether people will be able to appeal a compensation decision? Why is legal aid not being made available to pursue claims?
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have two points to make in my contribution. They are to do with the isolation of part of the Windrush community in some parts of the country. I recall that, during the coal miners’ strike of 1984-85, I was asked to look after the only black miner out of 2,500 miners working at Manton colliery in Worksop. When the union asked whether I would take him under my wing, assist him and look after him during the strike, I asked why. The answer was “For his safety.”
In those coal-mining communities and in similar rural and semi-rural communities, there are scattered around many individuals who are from the Windrush generation and who are potentially eligible for compensation, but in my experience they tend to be less well connected to others of that generation and therefore more isolated in terms of information. There is one very straightforward thing that does not appear to have happened, so I propose to the Minister that she should write to local newspapers, such as the Worksop Guardian, the Mansfield Chad, the Retford Times and the Doncaster Free Press, spelling out in simple terms who is eligible and why and what they can do about it. That will open it up to those individuals, some of whom I assisted in my former representative role to apply and win the compensation they were due.
My second point echoes that made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. My experience of coal miners’ claims for industrial injury is that solicitors and claims handlers took one-quarter, sometimes more, of the settlement, and people will not come forward in the same numbers. Citizens advice bureaux ought to be empowered and given a modest degree of funding to promote the case and give advice to individuals, whatever kind of community they live in. Then those in areas such as Nottinghamshire who are due compensation will have the opportunity to get it.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, this scheme is an attempt to compensate a generation of people who found themselves with a genuine and terrible injustice. It is a real stain on this country’s recent history, highlighted by that moving speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. I draw to the attention of the Government another injustice that will not be addressed by this measure yet affects many of the Windrush generation and many others, too, throughout the world.
Monica Philip was one of the Windrush generation who accepted the invitation from the British Government to emigrate from the Caribbean to help fill the employment gap in the UK. She arrived in the UK shortly before her 21st birthday in 1959 and worked tirelessly in a variety of jobs, including as a courier for 15 years in the Ministry of Defence. Her mother’s illness and failing eyesight forced Monica to leave the UK and return to Antigua in 1996, two years before her due retirement age.
In 1998, Monica was advised that she was entitled to a UK state pension, payment of which commenced in October 1998 at a rate of £74.11 per week; but it has remained at that level ever since. It is extremely unfair that this hard-working lady, who is now of course elderly, accepted the UK Government’s call to work here and, after paying for 37 years the same contributions as everybody else and then accepting the responsibility of returning to Antigua to look after her ailing mother, was effectively cheated out of her rightful pension. Her younger sister, who also emigrated to the UK but remains here, received a full pension which, with annual increases, is roughly double that of her elder sister.
I should like to highlight another Antiguan, Harold Williams, who left the island in 1955 aged 20. He worked hard and was always employed; he did his National Service here in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers regiment. For 40 years, Harold contributed diligently to the national insurance scheme. When he returned to Antigua, he was at no time informed that his pension would be frozen on his return. These frozen pensioners never have an increase in the basic pension, and this iniquity exists for the majority of Commonwealth countries. Strangely, in the Caribbean only Barbados and Jamaica do not have frozen pensions.
In my years in the other place, I consistently heard Ministers of all Governments give their excuses for this state of affairs. It can be resolved without a huge cost to the Treasury. I know that the measure we are discussing cannot address this; indeed, the Minister is not from the relevant department. However, this is indeed another stain on our country’s much vaunted sense of fairness and equality. I urge the Government to think again and I will return to this until we right this wrong. I thank noble Lords for their indulgence in letting me raise this issue today.
The Deputy Speaker
I hope that we can now hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. Do we have him?
Lord Woolf (CB)
Yes, you have me. I apologise, but the system went down. I welcome this debate and am delighted to take part. I refer to my entries in the register, which include my membership of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired so well by the right honourable Harriet Harman. I also acknowledge the help I received from the excellent Library briefing for this debate.
The finding of the Joint Committee on the Windrush generation makes very sad reading, as confirmed by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. When something goes wrong in a society, it is very important that the society not only acknowledges that this has happened but makes sure that it is redeemed, in so far as that is possible. There are times when any Government can depart from the standards that the rule of law requires. I hope that the Minister will accept without reservation that this is such an occasion. If so, the state is under a clear obligation to remedy the situation. In doing so, it should adopt a generous and open approach.
Sadly, although the Government appeared initially to be adopting the correct approach, they have departed from it. It is worrying that the question of compensation has not been dealt with expeditiously. I cannot believe that more claims would not have been concluded if the Home Office had shown greater flexibility. I can understand why the former shadow Home Secretary said:
“The amount and the quantity of the payments are pitifully small”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/2/20; col. 626.]
I agree with Wendy Williams that a more personalised and sensitive approach to claimants should have been adopted. Even with my experience many years ago of acting in the courts for most government departments for five years, it takes my breath away that the Home Office, having failed to make or conserve any records, tries to rely on the inadequacy of the Windrush claimants’ efforts to produce records and establish the right to citizenship given to them by the Immigration Act 1971. Then, for a time at any rate, the Home Office turned on its head the burden of proof. A more appropriate approach would have been to give the claimants the benefit of any reasonable doubt. That is what should be done. It is not necessary for representation; what is needed for justice to be done to the claimants has not happened yet.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, given the time limit we have today, I want to make three specific points. First, the Windrush scandal has touched every part of Britain. In Lewisham Deptford where I live, my local Member of Parliament, Vicky Foxcroft, recently noted that she is now handling cases for 22 people who are part of the Windrush scandal. I pay tribute to her and her team and to the excellent but underfunded Lewisham Refugee and Migrant Network, which works with local people on these issues. Sadly, in one of the cases, a constituent’s father died while awaiting a decision on his Windrush application. I want therefore to ask the Minister: where an applicant dies before a decision on their application is made, would a relative still be eligible to claim under the deceased person’s estate claim? It seems that parental status needs to be settled before an application can be considered.
Secondly, community confidence in the scheme is low. It is deeply disappointing that the scheme has paid out so little to so few. An independent system managed outside the Home Office has, sadly, been ruled out by the Government, yet some of the recommendations from Wendy Williams’s review are about changing the culture in the Home Office. For example, she states that staff should learn about,
“the history of inward and outward migration and the history of black Britons.”
Have the staff working on Windrush taskforce and scheme gone through this type of learning? If not, why not, and will they?
Finally, we need to learn from decisions already taken continually to improve the scheme. The latest figures show that fewer than one in 20 Windrush claimants have received compensation. Knowing the reasons given for negative outcomes would allow for an assessment of whether any part of the process, such as the need to gather a large amount of evidence, are barriers to successful claims. Will the Minister commit to a review of negative outcomes to inform our understanding of the scheme and how it works in practice?
The Deputy Speaker
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is having IT problems, so we will now go to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, it hardly seems possible that this issue could have assumed greater significance now than when it first came to public attention in 2017, but this pandemic has highlighted the extraordinary contribution of the Windrush generation and their descendants to the UK and to vital public services such as health, social care and transport, making even more shameful the treatment they received as a result of the Windrush scandal. Some of them have answered government’s call and come out of retirement to help this country through our current crisis, echoing their response in 1948 when they boarded “Empire Windrush” to help rebuild a nation devastated by war.
This scheme is an important step towards redressing the considerable wrongs visited on those original pioneers and on other Commonwealth citizens, injustices powerfully articulated by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon and Lady Benjamin. I want to address three points.
The first is on the importance of getting implementation right. I welcome the establishment of the cross-government working group and the £500,000 community fund for grassroots organisations to promote and advise. However, as I noted at Second Reading, grassroots organisations are effective because they are community-specific and, given the range of communities and locations involved, this funding may not be sufficient.
Concerns have also been raised about the complexity of the process and whether this contributes to the small number of applications having been received so far: around 1,000, despite the Home Office estimating that some 15,000 people could be eligible. Lack of access to legal aid may be a factor, and so might lack of trust. Is the Minister confident that the Home Office can earn the confidence of communities which have every reason to be nervous of engaging with it?
Secondly, I want to stress the importance of adopting the lessons of Wendy Williams’s review more widely across government. As she says, we must
“go further to right the wrongs”.
With that in mind, I urge the Government to address the growing risk that the EU settlement scheme becomes what some charities are already calling “this generation’s Windrush”. Does the Minister share my concerns that we risk creating once again a tier of second-class citizens and that the lessons of Windrush have not been learned?
Finally, we should not imagine that this scheme on its own will end the discrimination against BAME communities so clearly evident in relative rates of poverty, access to education, housing and employment and in social and health-related inequalities. This has been highlighted in the gravest of ways in the disproportionate numbers of BAME patients and NHS staff critically ill with, and dying from, Covid-19.
This scheme is welcome, but we would most effectively honour the legacy of the Windrush generation by a wholehearted commitment to eradicating, once and for all, the inequality, discrimination and denial of rights that gave rise to and perpetrated one of the most shameful episodes in our national life.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for giving us this opportunity to discuss what was indeed a failure of British law, politics and bureaucracy. Tens of thousands of people’s lives were damaged or destroyed as a result. It is an even greater scandal because, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, these are the people contributing so greatly to dealing with the coronavirus epidemic at the moment. Indeed, they are more likely to catch the virus themselves, so they are putting their lives at risk. These are people who helped to build up our country after the Second World War and who are clearly British. They were put through a terrible time and it was exacerbated by the fact that Ministers in the Government had this policy of a hostile environment. That sadly did not help. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that this will never happen again.
A related matter that I want to mention is the freedom of the press. I did a report on this for the Council of Europe recently. It is so vital in our democracy. The Guardian needs to be commended for the way it highlighted this. One wonders what might have happened if there had not been such concentration on this by the media and the revelations that highlighted it.
I want to ask the Minister three things in relation to the scheme, which I hope she will deal with in her reply. First, the compensation payments seem to be calculated on the financial impact—loss of income, loss of access to housing and other things that people suffered. Can we have an assurance that there will be some compensation for the grief and the psychological effects? They can be assessed, so some assessment should be made and that must be included as well.
Secondly, the Minister said that there was no cap on the expenditure, but at the moment only £20 million to £30 million is allocated. Some 15,000 people have applied, but the Office for National Statistics thinks that six times as many could be eligible. Can we get an assurance that the money in the budget will be increased to take account of that?
Finally, can we get an assurance that any knock-on effect on the younger generation will be taken account of, to support the sons and grandsons of this generation and to make sure that this sort of thing does not happen again? We have a duty to learn from this and make sure that we, and future British Governments, never let this kind of thing happen again. I hope the Minister will give us some assurances in her reply.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there is only one race: the human race. When I was a parliamentary candidate in Cheltenham in 1992, I was accused by an angry woman of bringing racism to the town. I replied, “Madam, before I came to Cheltenham, you had no black people here.”
In 1948, the British Government made a desperate call to the Caribbean for workers, but they also got people. My Jamaican father fought for Britain as a sergeant in the Eighth Army in the Second World War. He was one of thousands from the Commonwealth answering the call to help rebuild post-war Britain. When he came to England on the HMS “Windrush”, my father was shocked to see posters warning, “No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs”, but consoled himself with the observation, “Well, at least I’m first in the queue!”
Ironically, it was my father’s talent as a professional cricketer which meant he experienced a higher level of racism at exclusive events such as Ascot and Henley, to which most black people were not even invited. He also became the first black soccer referee in the 1950s. The players were so stunned to see a black referee that they forgot to shout and swear at each other on the pitch.
My mother also came from Jamaica in 1948. Her father had been a dedicated chief of police in Jamaica and was awarded an OBE. She served for many decades as a nurse in our NHS. When she retired, she became a volunteer hospital visitor for the Stroke Association. My parents are model examples of the Windrush generation who endured racism and other challenges to make a positive contribution here.
It must be recognised that many of the Windrush generation, like my mother, became the dedicated backbone and inspiration for the excellent NHS we are currently saluting for saving our lives and keeping us safe during this Covid-19 virus period. In 2002 I had the privilege to open an orthopaedic hospital in Kingston, Jamaica. It was ironic to hear from the management that a major challenge that Commonwealth hospitals have faced over decades is the continuing loss of excellent nurses and other skilled medical staff to more prosperous nations such as Britain.
I spent many years at the BBC as a producer and presenter at White City. I wondered if it was called that because everyone above kitchen level was white. It is against that personal background that I found the Windrush scandal so outrageous. However, it is not just about the Windrush generation; this scandal offends the whole nation and affects the reputation of Britain across the rest of the world.
I have some questions for the Minister. What is the total number of claimants so far? Only £62,000 has been awarded so far, which is a pitiful sum. Legal aid is a right; it is not about fat cat lawyers, it is about justice. Will there be a permanent independent adviser? Will the Minister consider extending the deadline because of the problems we now have with Covid-19?
We are a nation of immigrants. Because of this episode, we are now learning to value many people, key workers, who have previously been overlooked. This is a new era, like the roaring 1920s and the Second World War. This is the new roaring 2020s, when victims have the opportunity to become victors. This is a shake up to wake up.
It is about equality and justice for all. As Martin Luther King said, we have all come on different ships, but we are all in the same boat now. After the chess game is over, the black and white pieces all go back in the same box.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, like others, I very much welcome this debate, and indeed I welcome the compensation scheme in general terms. I also thank the Minister; I know my noble friend is determined to act justly with regard to the scheme.
We have an incredible paradox. At the same time as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, whom I was very pleased to work alongside, and I were delivering Windrush Day, to be celebrated on 22 June every year as a national day of celebration by all Britons, not just proud Windrush Britons and their descendants, we were faced with the Windrush scandal. We all admit that it is a scandal and that it needs dealing with quickly and fairly. Against that background, I have four areas that I would like the Minister to address by saying what is being done. I know that many of these are being brought up by Wendy Williams in her review as well.
The first is the need for a personalised approach so that every individual is treated individually. Every case is different and they do not deserve to be lumped together, as seems the case at the moment. Will the Minister please commit to this happening and ensure that it does?
Secondly, others have referred to the speed of treatment of cases, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and I very much agree. According to Home Office figures, there had been 1,108 claims to the end of last year but only 36 payments. That is 3%, which is totally inadequate. I really hope that the Minister is able to give us some sort of road map for how this backlog of claims—there must be a backlog—will be dealt with, because many people will die before they get their claims settled.
Thirdly, I appreciate that the deadline of the scheme has been extended to 2023, but against the backdrop of the dreadful virus and the slowness that there must now be—I do not point the finger of blame at anyone in particular for that—it may well be that we need to look at an extension beyond that. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister in that regard.
Lastly, on the complexity of the application form, I tend to agree more with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London than with my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Although some people will be able to deal with the form, it is 18 pages long. It is not totally complex but there are complex parts of it, and there are 44 pages of guidance. Many people will need help so that they are able to fill in the form and ensure that they get their claim.
I would be grateful if my noble friend could take up these points. In so far as she is not able to deal with them in her response today, although I hope she is, I would be grateful if she could write to me and ensure that others in this debate are copied in on the response.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving us the opportunity to debate again this very sad issue. Many noble Lords have spoken of the problems and the history of this massive unfairness; it is a real human disaster. I suspect that it goes back to what I have seen for many years as the institutional racism of the Home Office.
My noble friend Lord Foulkes talked about the work that the Guardian has done in reporting on about 1,000 wrongful immigration offence reviews not being started for two years, and a backlog of 3,720 since the scandal was uncovered. Has the Home Office really changed its spots, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, suggested?
I recall that an early draft of the Williams report called the Home Office institutionally racist, and reckless in developing a defensive culture around immigration policy. Of course, you do not often get away with criticising the spoon that feeds you, as I found with my HS2 report. Has the Home Office really changed its spots?
I recall the immigration Bill, which I think has now been withdrawn. Like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I have to question how our hospitals would survive without immigrants. How would the academic world survive without the movement of world-beating academics? The hospitality sector is in very serious trouble, as I spoke about last week. Then, of course, there are the fruit and vegetable pickers; we now have to fly them in from Bulgaria, forgetting all about social distancing, which seems not to matter. We are in a worse state than Germany, where the chairman of the German fruit growers’ association was reported as saying that Germans are the wrong shape for picking fruit and do not like bending down. I think that applies to the UK as well.
The Home Office needs to change its spots and get rid of this dogmatic and unfair approach, which will do nothing to help our economy recover. Will the Home Office reflect fully on the Williams report and its recommendations? Will the Minister support the excellent suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, of an independent review? That is a great idea, but it must be truly independent, and preferably not led by the Home Office.
The Deputy Speaker
I think that we may have the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. No, we have no luck there. We will move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
This has been a heartfelt debate, and I am only sorry that the system has not shown every speaker on the screen, although we have heard from them all other than my noble friend Lord Dholakia. As I have been able to see what my noble friend was going to say before the debate started, I hope he will have another opportunity to make what I know would have been a very clear and tough speech.
Let us contrast the photographs of the bright, eager faces of people arriving here in the 1940s and 1950s, looking forward to a new life and contributing to the UK, with those who later found out that not only were they not wanted, they were not recognised. The terms for what many of them did are topical: key workers, essential workers. Wendy Williams as well as parliamentary committees have used case studies that include current photographs. The experiences of individuals illuminate the whole. The media have used case studies too, and I pay tribute, as others have done, to the investigative journalists who have shone a light on the scandal. Amelia Gentleman’s book is analytical, distressing and shaming. The compensation scheme, in the words of the recent Bill, applies to
“certain categories of persons in recognition of difficulties arising out of an inability to demonstrate lawful immigration status.”
Those are weasel words. The recognition is that the Home Office was unable to recognise the law or rights. They are rights, not something that some people deserve, which is the language used too often by some Ministers, although not, I think, by the noble Baroness. It is as if they have to be earned and can be forfeited.
Victim blaming is never attractive. We are told that people should have contacted the Home Office, but it is a bit rich to have expected the Windrush generation to understand what the Home Office did not. Could any of us list all the provisions of our complex immigration legislation, any more than we could provide evidence for every year of our residence? I threw away my school reports when I cleared my mother’s house. The Home Office threw away records when it cleared an office, despite junior officials protesting about how often they referred to them.
I want to ask just a few questions beyond those asked by other noble Lords about the scheme and about the people who have been affected by what happened. What have the Government learned about outsourcing public sector work to the private sector? Have they logged the losses of jobs, of homes, of medical treatment and benefits denied? How many people were detained? I cannot let this moment go by without mentioning the detention, neither necessary nor proportionate when there is no risk of absconding, of people who were not criminals. In 2020, in the midst of a pandemic, we are putting at risk, by continuing their detention, people who are not criminals or who have served their sentence.
Why do some components of the claim to the scheme have to meet the criminal standard of proof, or its equivalent? This reflects the original problem that the Home Office required standards of proof that were difficult if not impossible to meet; to quote the review,
“an environment for staff to reject rather than be proportionate or objective in each case.”
Why is there not a longer cut-off date for claims? After all, the Government, in the shape of HMRC questioning taxpayers, can go back six years. How many people are now thought to have a claim and how many died before they even received an apology?
The Minister will resist any suggestion of a read-across to the EU settled status scheme, although I will make one, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I accept that some experience has been applied, but although the Windrush scandal may have been unforeseen, it was both foreseeable and avoidable. I would like to think that, in applying the settled status scheme, the culture of disbelief and of carelessness and ignorance has been ditched in favour of the recognition of a duty of care to applicants. The NAO referred to this too. The large proportion of grants of pre-settled, not settled, status that have been made surely raises a warning flag of problems down the line when applicants discover that what they have been granted is not what they had understood it to be.
It is right that the department should reflect on the review, but not all the recommendations require a pause. The hostile environment was designed to be read as hostile and intolerable to immigrants, and it was racist. Merely rebranding it takes political loyalties too far. Wendy Williams is measured but clear, recommending
“a full review and evaluation of the … policy and measures—individually and cumulatively … whether they are effective and proportionate in meeting their stated aim, given the risks inherent in the policy … and its impact on British citizens and migrants with status, with reference to equality law and particularly the public sector equality duty.”
Legislatively that environment can be dismantled now.
When the previous Home Secretary responded to a report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I was a member, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on the detention of members of the Windrush generation, he referred to establishing a casework profession with a culture that puts the customer—perhaps not the term I would have chosen—at the heart of decision-making, and ensuring better use of face-to-face engagement. I think the Minister will acknowledge that there was scarcely any such engagement.
I do not know whether the Minister has up-to-date news on work on cultural change. She has referred to some of the processes now being undertaken. These may have been the subject of her letter of 30 April, which I do not seem to have received, so I apologise if I have raised points which are covered in that letter. Ms Williams’ review was of course not of the whole of the Home Office; nevertheless, it is surely widely applicable. She is clear about the importance of diversity in the Home Office, not just at junior levels, and about engagement with citizens, applicants and staff.
Ms Williams is clear too that some of her recommendations, if implemented, will have tangible outcomes: the level of successful appeals, the quality of casework, and better informed and better evaluated policy. Other outcomes are intangible but essential: the look and feel of the department, with a values-led culture and a mission bought into by all levels of staff.
The Government as a whole should reflect on the review, because there are lessons for the whole of government. I look forward to hearing in a few months’ time what lessons have been learned, and how they are being applied, so that all that is done is, to use Ms Williams’ phrase, “rooted in humanity.”
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I have not yet seen the Minister’s letter of 30 April either, so I hope it does not impact on what I want to say. This has been an important debate on an issue that will surely always be regarded as a stain on our country’s reputation for decency and humanity.
The independent Williams review into the Windrush scandal stated that it was “foreseeable and avoidable.” The compensation scheme is intended to compensate claimants for the losses and adverse impacts suffered. The impact assessment indicates that there will be a policy review in October 2024. Against what criteria, and with what objective, will the policy be reviewed?
The impact assessment says:
“There is significant uncertainty surrounding the volume of claims and associated costs. Compensation and operational costs are estimated in line with the 11,500 eligible claimants planning assumption … Total compensation costs range from £20.5 to £301.3 million … based on the volume range of 3,000 to 15,000 eligible claims”,
with a best estimate of £160.9 million. The impact assessment also has a paragraph headed “Description and scale of key monetised benefits by ‘main affected groups’”, which starts by saying:
“Benefits (compensation payments) relate to righting the wrongs suffered by those from the Windrush generation.”
It is no wonder that concerns have been raised about ownership of the scheme being with the Home Office if the Government regard these payments under the scheme as benefits—for which, presumably, the recipients should be grateful
It may also explain why the compensation payments appear to be modest, bearing in mind that the Government have accepted that lives were ruined and families were torn apart. Taking the Government’s best-estimate figure of costs under the scheme of £160.9 million and dividing it by the 11,500 assumed eligible claimants gives an average compensation award per claimant of approximately £14,000. That is not a lot, bearing in mind that compensation payments are intended to cover losses ranging from detention and removal, loss of employment, loss of housing, loss of access to healthcare, loss of education, loss of access to banking and what is described as
“impact on normal daily life”,
which apparently includes such things as
“missed key family events or inability to travel”.
Included in that must also be the feelings of rejection, humiliation and injustice; of suddenly being told, wrongly—utterly wrongly—that you have no status and no right to remain in the country you have lived in for much if not all of your life, the country you proudly regarded as your home in the same way as Members of your Lordships’ House do. Is all that worth compensation—or perhaps, in the Government’s eyes, a benefit payment—of, on average, £14,000?
The Prime Minister once infamously described payment of £250,000 per annum for his newspaper column as “peanuts”. He now heads a Government who are offering, at an average of £14,000 per head, just one eighteenth of “peanuts” as compensation to the Windrush generation and others. The Government have said that the compensation scheme allows those who have suffered to avoid court proceedings in pursuit of justice. Can the Government say whether accepting compensation under the scheme does or does not then preclude an individual from taking legal proceedings if that is a step they wish to explore?
The scheme provides for awards that are tariff-based and awards based on actual loss. Tariff-based awards are determined on the balance of probabilities, but for awards for actual losses the Government require firm evidence that the losses claimed were actually incurred. One can envisage that being a major hurdle for many claimants after so many years have elapsed. There is provision for an independent review by an HMRC adjudicator where a claimant is not satisfied with the outcome of their claim. However, the Home Office can then reject, as I understand it, the recommendation of an independent reviewer.
The tariff awards provide for a maximum of £10,000 plus for deportation; awards for detention based on the length of that detention; awards for loss of access to employment up to a maximum of £1,147 of actual monthly net pay; denial of access to child benefit, child tax credit or working tax credit at £1,264, £2,500 and £1,100 respectively; denial of access to housing services at £1,000; denial of access to free NHS care at £500; denial of access to higher education at £500; denial of access to banking services at £200; and homelessness at £250 per month, up to a maximum of £25,000.
Then we come to the tariff awards under the heading “Impact on Life”. These are meant to cover injury to feelings, including anxiety, distress and reputational damage; family separation; immigration difficulties when attempting to return to the UK; and deterioration in physical or mental health. However, only one award can be made under the “Impact on Life” heading and there are six levels of award, ranging from just £250 at level 1 to £10,000 plus at level 6. Qualification for level 6 requires
“profound impacts on a claimant’s life which are likely to be irreversible”.
The Home Office, under the appeal arrangements, will still ultimately be the judge of whether the award—even if it decides the strict criteria are met—is £10,000 or moves into the £10,000 plus bracket, and by how much. The Government say there is no cap on compensation. In practice, it is clear that there are many caps.
There is provision for discretionary awards under the scheme, but it does not look as though that discretion is going to be exercised too often, since the impact assessment says, under the “Discretionary Award” heading,
“Due to lack of data, this loss category has not been included in the analysis.”
In the impact assessment, under the heading “Benefits” of compensation, it is revealed that:
“The Government will also mitigate the risk of litigation and associated legal costs, which is likely to be more expensive than compensation through the scheme.”
Under the heading “Objectives”, the impact assessment says that the scheme
“minimises the risk of litigation”
and
“operates as cost effectively as possible while meeting the above objectives”,
one of which is that it
“seeks to compensate eligible individuals for certain financial losses they have experienced as a result of difficulty in demonstrating their lawful immigration status.”
If the scheme is to compensate only for “certain financial losses” experienced, can the Government spell out the kind of financial losses experienced that are not covered by the scheme?
The scheme has obviously been drawn up in part with a view to saving money on costly legal proceedings. When it comes to the level of compensation, we are not talking about some relatively minor event in which some got hurt; this was much more than that. As the Williams review said:
“The many stories of injustice and hardship are heartbreaking, with jobs lost, lives uprooted and untold damage done to so many individuals and families … They had no reason to doubt their status, or that they belonged in the UK. They could not have been expected to know the complexity of the law as it changed around them.”
Can the Government indicate the benchmark against which they determined that the levels of compensation we are talking about—with the average of around £14,000 per claimant—are fair and reasonable in the light of the words of the Williams review to which I have just referred?
The Williams review also stated quite clearly that the Home Office “must change its culture”. We do not want a similar situation arising over citizenship rights in the light of our withdrawal from the EU.
In March the Government said that they would bring forward a detailed formal response to the Williams review recommendations in the next six months. Does that timetable still stand in the light of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic?
A large number of points have been raised in this debate, and I hope that the Minister will respond as soon as is reasonably possible to any she is not in a position to respond to today. Subject to the Minister now persuading me otherwise, I just wish the levels of compensation that it is projected and intended will be paid matched the sincerity and genuineness of the Home Secretary’s Statement to Parliament in March, including the immediate apology, and I just wish the Government would now agree to reflect further on their compensation scheme.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for some really powerful and thoughtful contributions. Picking up on the last point from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the Government’s will to right the wrongs of the Windrush generation is not diminished. The scheme is just one part of a broader range of matters to be discussed in relation to the Windrush generation and the challenges they have faced and, in some cases, continue to face.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence—the first Back-Bench contributor to this debate—said, the Windrush generation were invited here to rebuild this country. Not only that, but they have contributed so much to the current battle against the coronavirus. I also refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and my noble friend Lord Bourne. I was delighted to hear that he had helped her set up Windrush Day, and I am delighted about the Windrush monument that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, helped set up.
There is no back-tracking or back-pedalling in our will to right the wrongs of this generation. I hope that, in some of the remarks I will make now in closing, I can demonstrate some of that. I also apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their not having received my letter. I will recirculate it so that all noble Lords who have not seen it can have sight of it.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, asked about the design, scope and funding of the scheme. This goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, as well. We are absolutely committed to making sure that everyone who is due compensation can receive it. There is no cost cutting or penny pinching. We want everyone to have the compensation they are due. To that end, as I will demonstrate, we are helping them in their applications to achieve just that.
In designing the scheme, 650 responses to the call for evidence and nearly 1,500 responses to the public consultation informed the approach. We also held several public events, and Martin Forde QC, who is a very experienced barrister on all aspects of health law, was appointed by the previous Home Secretary to advise on the design of the compensation scheme.
Despite its name, the scheme is not limited to men and women who originally came to the UK from the Caribbean Commonwealth who have struggled to demonstrate their lawful status, and the eligibility criteria are clearly set out in the published scheme rules. The scheme covers a broad range of losses, and compensation is awarded according to both actual losses and tariff-based awards. To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the award levels take into account existing precedents and ombudsman-recommended payments. While some categories of awards have an upper limit, there is no overall cap on the amount an individual can receive in compensation under the scheme. There is also an uncapped discretionary category, which is for significant impact or loss not necessarily identified within the scheme in order to make it as flexible as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the impact assessment. It was published in February and outlines the Home Office estimate that the Windrush Compensation Scheme will cost between £90 million and £250 million based on 11,500 eligible claims. It is clearly a very wide range. It has reduced since the previous impact assessment due to lower than anticipated claims to date, which a number of noble Lords mentioned. There remains a high degree of uncertainty around the likely volume of compensation claims and the level of claims against the different categories. As a result, the impact assessment uses a number of different volume scenarios with a wide range of possible costs.
That is why we announced earlier this year that we are extending the scheme until 2 April 2023, so we are doing all we can to raise awareness of the scheme. As I said previously, there is a balance to be struck between having a date far enough in the future to enable people to feel confident that they have time to make their claim, but soon enough to encourage people to put in their claim. We feel that the two-year extension provides this, but there remains the option to further extend the duration, if that is required—to answer noble Lords’ questions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the evidential requirements. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, talked about the benefit of the doubt. We have made the evidential threshold as low as possible, but we ask applicants to provide as much information and evidence as they can so that the best assessment of their claim and personal circumstances can be made. We want people to get the maximum compensation to which they are entitled and will work with claimants to support them in this, for example by contacting other government departments. To this end, a couple of individuals have already been awarded compensation for elements for which they did not originally claim, which demonstrates our commitment to working closely with claimants to ensure that they receive the compensation to which they are entitled.
However, I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is important that we are spending taxpayers’ money appropriately, and therefore we require that minimum level of information and evidence. Where awards are for actual losses, it is right that we seek to obtain an appropriate level of assurance that the losses were incurred in order to fulfil our duty properly to manage taxpayers’ money.
The aim of this approach is to fully reimburse those who can evidence their actual losses. For those who cannot meet the evidential requirements for an award based on actual loss, a tariff award may be made. Our approach is comparable with the employment tribunal’s approach to calculating loss of earnings, where an award to cover actual losses generally would be paid where the claimant is able to sufficiently evidence what those losses could have been.
There were some opposing views on claimant assistance and legal advice, from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox of Newport and Lady Bull. We have designed the compensation scheme to be as clear and simple as possible, so that people do not need legal assistance to make a claim. My noble friend Lord Blencathra outlined very eloquently the pitfalls of needing legal assistance, the lawyers scooping up all the money and the actual claimants not getting the money that they deserve. To that end, claim forms have been designed to be simple and easy to understand, and they were tested with users. Claimants need to complete only the sections of the form that are relevant to their claim, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra pointed out. However, for those who want or need support to make a claim, the Home Office has funded Citizens Advice to provide free independent advice and support, to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and my noble friend Lord Bourne. This advice is available to individuals in the UK and overseas. A tender is currently open to select an organisation to provide free independent advice and support to claimants for the duration of the scheme. To provide that continuity of service, the contract with Citizens Advice will be extended until the tender process is complete.
Some have suggested that we should allow applicants to recover legal costs incurred in applying to the scheme, but as my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, to do so might serve to encourage organisations to take advantage of people who are potentially very vulnerable, and charge them for unnecessary support to complete a claim. We have already heard of such terrible stories of no-win no-fee approaches. All we want is for the compensation to go to those who are entitled to it.
We aim to award compensation as quickly as possible. However, the time it takes to process each claim will depend on the complexity of individual cases, and it is right that we deal with cases properly. Where we can resolve part of a claim more quickly than other parts, we are making interim payments to ensure that claimants receive their awards as quickly as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, pointed out that up to the end of December, only 36 payments had been made, totalling £62,198. I share the strength of feeling about these numbers, but many of these payments are interim payments, meaning that claimants may receive further awards later. Many more payments have been made since then. Further statistics will be published later this month.
As a comparator, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, suggests that claims under that scheme take 12 to 18 months to conclude. We may also be able to consider a payment under the support in urgent and exceptional circumstances policy, to provide support to members of the Windrush generation who have an urgent and exceptional need.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked about the cap. Again, I assure noble Lords that we will pay whatever compensation is due. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, talked about negative outcomes. We are continually monitoring the operation of this scheme, making amendments based on feedback, as changes to the rules earlier in the year, such as changing the date to 2023, demonstrated.
The department continues to work extensively with communities and stakeholders to raise awareness of both the Windrush compensation scheme and the Windrush scheme. To date, the Home Office has attended or hosted more than 100 engagement and outreach events and surgeries throughout the UK. We have used social media in a very targeted way to reach those who may be eligible to receive compensation and to encourage them to come to our events. Some 20,000 information cards have been distributed to affected groups and communications toolkits have been sent to almost 200 stakeholders.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, suggested moving the operation of the scheme out of the Home Office. This was also suggested at Second Reading. I can understand the concerns of those who think that the department that caused the problem in the first place should not be dealing with this. However, moving the operation of the scheme out the Home Office would risk significant delay and I do not think that anyone wants that to happen.
The first stage in deciding a claim for compensation is to confirm an individual’s identity and eligibility; this is linked to the immigration status of the individual. It would be difficult to decouple this from the Home Office without increasing the time taken to process an individual’s claim and issue payments.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London talked about external scrutiny, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. We have put in place a number of measures to ensure that the scheme has an appropriate level of external scrutiny. To answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, we have an independent review process for those dissatisfied with their compensation offer. This is conducted by the HMRC Adjudicator—a non-departmental public body. The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Rosser, both asked whether a compensation award is a full and final offer or whether it can be revisited. The award is always an offer. The claimant can accept it, at which point it becomes final, or they can request a review, as I have outlined. I hope that that helps answer the noble Lords’ questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, also asked about help with housing and jobs in addition to monetary payment. Where people are in immediate need, we have put in place measures to give them the support needed, such as a dedicated vulnerable persons team, which has helped more than 1,400 people, including with access to benefits and housing. Financial compensation gives claimants the freedom to choose how they wish to proceed. On 19 March, the Home Secretary announced an expanded cross-government Windrush working group, which will take a strategic view of a range of issues relating to Windrush and wider race inequalities. It will aim to develop initiatives to improve the lives of those affected by bringing together government and community stakeholders to co-design and deliver the response. That might be through employment support programmes, dedicated mental health support and specialist education and training schemes.
The noble Lord asked whether we paid for the flights of people who have been repatriated. I can tell him that 35 payments have been made under the support in urgent and exceptional circumstances policy. The total value of the payments approved is £46,795. In addition to these payments, three exceptional payments for flights to return to the UK were made before the official launch of the policy on 17 December. In addition to the three payments made for flights before the launch of the urgent and exceptional scheme, a further four payments had been made under the scheme to return individuals to the UK.
In addition, as interim independent adviser to the scheme, Martin Forde continues to provide external scrutiny and challenge on its operation and implementation. We continue to listen and respond to feedback received from stakeholders, including through the Windrush stakeholder advisory group which was launched last September, to ensure that the scheme is operating effectively and delivering for those whom it is designed to compensate. The changes announced by the Government earlier this year demonstrate our commitment to this and build on changes made to the rules last October.
I want to place on record again that no information provided by individuals as part of a claim for compensation will be used for immigration enforcement action.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, asked about reputational damage and where that would come in under the compensation scheme. It would be considered as part of the “Impact on Life” category, as would grief, which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked about.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, asked about posthumous awards that might go to somebody’s estate. There absolutely is scope for that, and I think that posthumous awards have been made.
I think that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who asked about an annual conference. I am very happy to take that idea away. In her report, Wendy Williams recommends reconciliation events, so we will certainly consider that suggestion.
To go back to the compensation scheme, all the elements mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, would qualify for compensation.
My noble friend Lord Randall talked about pensions. This is not my expert area, so, if he is amenable, I will write to him.
I want to come to the lessons learned review, and I ask noble Lords to indulge me if I go a little over my time. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, asked whether we will agree to all the recommendations in the review. Wendy Williams was really clear that we should resist the temptation to respond rapidly and suggested that we instead undertake a period of reflection, to engage staff at all levels to identify what should change. The Home Secretary has therefore committed to publishing the department’s response to the report within six months of publication. To address the point from the noble Lords, Lord Hastings and Lord Rosser, that would be on 19 September, if we are talking about six months from 19 March.
Noble Lords talked about various points in history when the Home Office failed the Windrush generation. Wendy Williams was clear that the injustices spanned 70 years. I would like to put on record at this point that we all need to look to ourselves and to the part that successive Governments played in how the Windrush generation was let down. Rather than the blame game, we all have our part to play.
The Windrush lessons learned implementation team has been set up to lead the response to the report, working with teams across the department and externally to take the steps needed to create a department that we can all be proud of.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and my noble friend Lord Sheikh talked about trust and culture. That is at the heart of what the Home Secretary will reflect upon.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London talked about education and empathy. Wendy Williams made a number of points about training and education, which we are looking at very carefully. Outreach events that the department is currently running allow civil servants the opportunity to hear the stories of those who have been impacted. I can confirm that people working in the Home Office have asked me personally not to forget about the Windrush report. Yes, the Home Office has been institutionally thoughtless, but there are a lot of people working there who do not want us to forget about the Wendy Williams report, or our reflection on it and response to it.
We have already announced that we will launch an expanded cross-government Windrush working group to develop programmes to improve the lives of those affected. We will continue to listen to stakeholders as we take forward establishing this group and are committed to ensuring that the Home Office and the wider Government protect, support and listen to every single part of the community they serve.
Finally, I will talk about the EU settlement scheme and EU citizens. The EU settlement scheme has been designed to make it easy for EU citizens and their family members who want to stay in the UK to get the UK immigration status that they need. It is designed precisely to avoid another Windrush. We think that the constitutive system that we have introduced is the best approach, because it provides EU citizens and their family members with clarity about what they need to apply for, and when, and the secure evidence of their status that they need. We now have over 3.4 million applications, of which over 3.1 million have been concluded. People have until 30 June next year to apply.
I have gone over time, as usual. I am very grateful to noble Lords for the contributions that they have made. I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate.
Covid-19: Government Response
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
Good evening, my Lords. The Virtual Proceeding on the repeat of the Urgent Question will now commence. I will call the Minister, who will repeat the Statement in the usual way. There will then be 10 minutes for questions, led by the Opposition Front Bench. The Minister will respond to each question in turn. I will call each Back-Bench Member on the speakers’ list to ask a supplementary question and the Minister will answer. I ask noble Lords to ask brief questions and give brief answers. Each speaker’s microphone will be unmuted prior to them asking a supplementary question and returned to mute once their question has finished.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, with leave I shall repeat the Answer given to an Urgent Question asked in the other place yesterday. In the repeat, I will use the most up-to-date figures, which have changed since yesterday. The Answer is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, we have flattened the curve of this epidemic, ensured that the NHS is not overwhelmed and expanded testing capacity to over 100,000 tests a day. As a Government, we are working resolutely to defeat the coronavirus. There are two important areas where I want to update the House today.
First, on the expansion of our work to test, track and trace, we have now built a national testing infrastructure of scale. Because we have this extra capacity, we will be delivering up to 30,000 tests a day to residents and staff in elderly care homes, making sure that symptomatic and asymptomatic staff and residents can all be tested. Our care system represents the best of us, supporting our loved ones with tenderness and dedication at their time of greatest need. Through this unprecedented expansion of testing capacity, we can give them the certainty and confidence that high-quality testing can provide.
Secondly, we are working to strengthen the resilience of the NHS. We currently have 3,382 spare critical care beds in the NHS, and that does not include the capacity provided by our Nightingale hospitals, including the 460-bed Sunderland Nightingale, which opened earlier today. We should all be very proud that we have built up the NHS so fast and that our collective national effort has helped to protect the NHS and flatten the curve. As a result, not only have we been able to restore some NHS services; we are in a position to be able to place the London Nightingale on standby. This is good news, because our NHS has not been overwhelmed by this crisis and remains open to those who need care, which means that this nation’s shared sacrifice is having an impact.
Throughout its time, this Chamber has borne witness to so much, and it has borne witness to the nation’s resolve once more. I am delighted that the British people are well and truly rising to this incredibly difficult challenge.”
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this Statement. I point out that the Commons took an hour to receive and discuss this update; we are getting 10 minutes. It is almost two weeks since I saw the Minister across this virtual Dispatch Box, which seems a long time in a pandemic. When we went into lockdown in March, he seemed to indicate his enthusiasm for being accountable to the House in lockdown. I regret to say that I do not believe that he or his colleagues have matched that aspiration. I place on record that it is shocking that noble Lords across the House are reduced to submitting vital questions about Covid to a lottery—a ballot of topical questions. That is not serious accountability. Unprecedented times need unprecedented procedures.
I have two questions. First, will the Minister support a proposal that he and his colleagues should come to the House every day and have a Covid-related Question Time, morning or evening, which would discuss the contents of the daily press conference and other urgent matters? Secondly, how does the Minister intend to fulfil his promise to the House that there would be an eight-week review of the Covid emergency legislation? By my reckoning, those eight weeks will be up in two weeks’ time.
Lord Bethell
I welcome the noble Baroness’s questions on accountability. However, I remind her that not all Covid-related matters are covered by the department of health; Ministers have been in front of the House every day it has been open, answering questions on Covid, and they have given fulsome and thoughtful answers to questions and scrutiny. I welcome also her question on the eight-week review, which, as she says, is coming up in a fortnight. I will find out how the usual channels wish to mark that occasion in the House, and I would welcome the chance to submit the Government to scrutiny on the matter.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
From these Liberal Democrat Benches we echo the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. We believe that lockdown should be lifted only using the WHO advice for “test, trace and isolate” to keep people safe. On 23 April, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, why “isolate” had been dropped from the Government’s slogan. He told your Lordships’ House:
“Turning to track and trace, I confirm that isolation is an absolutely intrinsic part of the track and trace regime: it just does not rhyme so well, so you never put it at the end, but ‘track, trace and isolate’ is the programme.”—[Official Report, 23/4/20; col. 166.]
Today, the Department of Health and Social Care’s Dear Colleague newsletter does not mention “isolate” in the context of lifting lockdown. Can the Minister say what evidence there is of a government plan for isolation, and how will we know that people are isolating, which is absolutely vital if we are to succeed in stopping transmission and keeping people safe? Although testing has increased it has not yet reached a consistent number of 100,000 per day, so what evidence is there for the Prime Minister’s new target of 200,000 per day by the end of May being delivered?
Lord Bethell
The Government’s commitment to isolation is spelled out clearly in guidelines published by Public Health England, and it is promoted every day with the Government’s “stay at home” slogan. On the 200,000-test aspiration, we have put in place a remarkable platform for testing. We have strong partnerships with important companies, we have sourced new supply chains of critical reagent swabs and other supplies that are in short measure, and we are making the logistical arrangements necessary for a massive expansion of testing. I believe that those will take us to whatever is necessary to meet the testing needs of the country.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My noble friend has described a situation that is still worrying. The rate of deaths and of new infections is still much higher than we wish, and we may soon be faced with a situation where the rules in different geographical locations or in different institutions vary, so we need more information. To enable us to seek optimum changes, could he please publish more information—for example, on how many cases came from hospitals and where, how many involve hospital or care workers, and how many involve other key workers, overseas visitors, self-isolators and the like?
Lord Bethell
The Government have gone about the Covid crisis with a great amount of transparency; a very large number of figures are published every single day. I am afraid that some of the questions my noble friend asks are beyond the reach of measurement in our statistical accountability at the moment, but I completely take on board and celebrate her call for transparency. We are working as hard as we can to get as many numbers out to the public as possible.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, tracking, tracing and isolating can be effective only if there is adequate testing. It was reassuring to hear the Prime Minister say today that the target was to be 200,000 tests a day by the end of this month. Earlier, he referred to 250,000 tests a day. Can the Minister confirm that millions of tests a week will be available, not just to patients and staff in hospitals and care homes but to the whole British public? In particular, they should be available to workers so that they can get tested and have the confidence to go to work, while consumers can have the confidence to go to restaurants and hotels, bars and venues. Can he also confirm whether pin-prick antibody tests will be available in the millions later this month to the whole British public so that people such as me, who have had Covid-19, can get tested? This would show that we have the immunity to go out to work and participate in the economy without infecting people or getting infected ourselves.
Lord Bethell
“Track, test and isolate” does not necessarily depend on doing millions of tests. South Korea, which has an extremely effective regime, does only 20,000 tests a day. That is because its whole society has worked hard to get the prevalence of the infection as low as possible. I celebrate the fact that the British public have committed to the lockdown, but I cannot disguise from the House the fact that the lockdown needs to continue to get the prevalence rate lower.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, yesterday the deputy chief scientist said that we needed to “get to grips” with what is occurring in our care homes. As data shows that deaths in care homes are rising while hospital deaths are plateauing, what specific actions are Her Majesty’s Government taking to put a stop to this dreadful crisis, which is unfolding before our very eyes?
Lord Bethell
The right reverend Prelate is entirely right to focus on care homes. It is an awful aspect of this disease that it attacks the most vulnerable who live in enclosed environments such as care homes. They have been an absolute priority for the Government. One aspect of our response is to massively increase testing in care homes. The increased capacity that we announced last week has been shifted massively towards care home testing. We are using mobile units and satellite drop-offs to increase the screening of patients and care home workers.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was contacted for help by a manufacturer, Thomas Olsen, who was responding to an appeal on television by the Health and Social Care Secretary, Matt Hancock, for ventilators to be made at scale by British companies. With my assistance, and after several attempts, we came up against a brick wall. Over a month later he discovered by chance that sufficient ventilators had been sourced, yet no message was sent down to all those working hard to produce them. Will the Minister ensure, first, that when such an appeal is made in future a single contact point is provided, rather as with Crimestoppers, so that there is no doubt how to get in touch and, secondly, that when the appeal is fulfilled the responders are given the courtesy of being stood down?
Lord Bethell
I completely acknowledge the situation and the testimony of the noble Lord. The response by British companies to the ventilator challenge was incredible and, at times, overwhelming. No discourtesy was meant to the firm that he mentioned and I completely take on board his comments about the importance of courtesy, respect and a proper feedback mechanism in such circumstances.
The Deputy Speaker
Lord Dobbs. As Lord Dobbs is not responding, we will go to Lord Liddle.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Following up on the question from my noble friend Lady Thornton, when the number of deaths in Britain is now the highest in Europe and the second highest in the world, do the Government really believe that their level of accountability to Parliament matches the scale of the crisis? If they can manage a press conference every day, can they not manage a regular parliamentary session which allows for proper questioning of what is going on?
Lord Bethell
I return to my comments to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. In the Lords at least, Ministers have been on the Front Bench answering questions on Covid every day since the Lords reopened. Subjects have ranged from social security and housing to, in my case, the Department of Health and Social Care. We remain accountable for the measures that we have put in place. The media also have a huge role in that scrutiny. We remain committed to keeping Parliament open, despite the lockdown regime, and completely respect the importance of parliamentary scrutiny.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, the time allotted for the Statement is now up. The day’s Virtual Proceedings are now complete and are adjourned. Good evening.